Beavah

I've seen huge units - 60 - 90 Scouts on paper - that could barely get 3 or 4 Scouts eligible for the OA, due to a lack of nights camping. These same units have a hard time getting half of their Scouts to the meeting to conduct an election. But they produce plenty of Eagles - advancement always seem fine, while the wheels on the rest of the methods are falling off.... Yah, BrentAllen, seems like you're da fellow who's been around some pretty sorry units all these years, eh? Yeh see all kinds of units out there, run by all kinds of adults. My own preferences as you know run along da same line as yours, eh? I prefer units that set high standards for advancement and outdoors and real patrol method and genuine youth leadership and all da rest. But I'm not a leader of all da units out there, nor am I their CO. My own preferences don't really matter, eh? It's my behavior that matters. And I try to treat 'em not as a bunch of weak-kneed schmucks, but as da caring fellow adult scouters that they are. It doesn't even matter if I'm right about 'em or not. What matters is my own choice and behavior being loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind and all da rest. Yep, as OGE describes, most units do less than half the Patrol Method, eh? Not a single adult-free patrol outing in a year. Plenty do half advancement method, with nuthin' but MB universities and the typically rushed, incomplete FCFY program. We all know that many if not most troops aren't really youth run, and every district has its fair-weather-only trailer campers. And despite all those things, I still see a heck of a lot of great kids in Scouting. Even the lads from those darn half-half-half troops come to their Eagle Boards of Review and appear to be the sort I'd be happy to hire or have living next door. Because oft as not, that SM who I just couldn't get to wrap his brain around real Patrol Method takes off work to take his scouts to assist in every flood or disaster to hit a 6-state area. That darn SM who gives away badges like candy is also the guy who did such a job inspiring his boys to service that they were recognized by the President. Da fellow who never seems to show up in a proper uniform anywhere puts in over 100 days in the field every year, and his half-uniformed scouts can be relied on to run or rescue any council outdoor event, even for a different district. That's just people, eh? People have their strengths and weaknesses, their likes and dislikes. By and large, over time, units tend to adopt the character of their principal adult leaders, strengths and weaknesses alike. No avoidin' it. The only question then to ask is how we should act as brother and sister scouters to those colleagues of ours, eh? My vote is with friendliness, courtesy, and kindness. Just as we'd hope they'd do for us. Beavah

These Troops exist. I wish you could see one some time. Oh, I know a few, eh? None of 'em are perfect, and they'd be the first to tell yeh so. One thing's for sure, though. None of the ones I know would ever behave discourteously to guests, includin' an OA election team that showed up in just shirts. Good troops take the Scout Law seriously, too. The point of course was that even if the SM were a butterball, it would be inappropriate for the OA youth to behave in that way to the troop that was welcoming them. Just as it is completely inappropriate for the two scouters to behave in the way they did toward the boys. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, FScouter, we didn't have a "rude intrusion". We had an OA team who was invited to a troop to conduct an election. They were guests, offering a service for free. If it's acceptable for the adults to point out problems with the outward appearance of their guests, it strikes me as being just as acceptable for the lads to point out problems with the outward appearance of their hosts. After all, fitness is an honest-to-goodness Aim of Scouting, not just a method. Of course it doesn't matter what da topic is, eh? The adults had no business addressing the OA team in the first place. Where was the SPL? Is it OK for the OA team to tell the SM that he's runnin' a shoddy program because he doesn't understand youth leadership, and he should be standin' over in the corner? How about commenting that they must not be real boy scouts with high standards because it looks like all they're doin' is car camping? Do unto others. If yeh feel it's acceptable to berate a young fellow who is taking his evening to come offer a service to your troop just because yeh don't like his pants, then surely it's OK if the young fellow comments on da other poor examples of scouting he sees from you during his visit. If yeh feel it's OK to insist on compliance from the lads, then it should be OK for the boys to insist on compliance from the adults. No more OA team visits until the SM loses those 40 pounds and lets his SPL run da meeting. Or, alternately, we could teach the lads courtesy by setting an example of courtesy ourselves, by welcoming 'em and thanking them for their time and service. Even if we don't like their pants. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yep, people aren't perfect, eh? I've been doin' scouting for a lot of years in quite a range of places and worked with more troops and crews and ships and posts (and a few packs too!) then I can remember. Ain't never seen one that made perfect use of all the methods. Rarely saw one that made near-perfect use of even a single method. If yeh want perfect, you're always goin' to be disappointed. Unless, that is, yeh really enjoy pointing out to others how they're not perfect. So yah, there are a lot of troops out there that only do what I'd consider fair-weather trailer-campin'. But at least they're gettin' the boys out and spending some time with 'em. Yep, there are plenty of adults out there who with training or without just don't seem to have the knack for relating well to kids. Their adult association is weak. But at least they're tryin', eh? And there's somethin' to be said for just being present in a boy's life. Yep, I think most troops out there place more emphasis on memorizing the Oath and Law than on really living it. Really livin' it takes commitment and courage and fallin' down a lot. But at least they're tryin' to memorize it and give pieces of the puzzle to kids. And on and on. Each and every program can do better, sure. But da folks who give to scouting are by and large a good lot, as are the kids. Don't let perfect methods ever become da goal. Stay focused on the Aims, eh? Sometimes it's enough to get by with an old, beat-up and imperfect tool if it gets yeh on the road to where yeh want to go. Beavah

Yah, then there's da cognitive dissonance caused by the Oath and Law, eh? A Scouter knows that he should demonstrate loyalty, helpfulness, courtesy, and kindness to others in the program, and that includes not judging or berating them based on their appearance or how they're dressed. Everybody has been taught from an early age not to judge people by their clothing or appearance. The other cognition is that he really enjoys being a big shot and telling other people what they're doing wrong. He enjoys the feeling of self-importance that gives him; the sense that he's insisting on high standards in youth. And he likes da attention his bespangled uniform gets him as long as he keeps calling attention to uniforming. To resolve the dissonance, he must bring both cognitions closer together, either by working to be more courteous and kind, or by dismissing the importance of the oath and law compared with the uniform. Many justifications are thus put forth in dismissing the importance of courtesy and kindness in the treatment of others when clothing is involved. Others have no dissonance because they put the values of courtesy and kindness first in their lives, and don't see a need to enforce appearance rules on others. Rather, they give others their time and attention and love, and hope a few lessons rub off. Of course, another way to reduce dissonance is to make snide comments about those who put courtesy, kindness, and service ahead of appearance. Perhaps couched in pseudo-psychology, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so jblake, what do yeh think about the OA team who tells the SM and former SM to lose the belly, eh? After all, "Reaching ideals is often times an impossibility, however, giving up and settling for second best along the way is not acceptable. " If the adults can comment on da youth's appearance for not being properly dressed, then can the youth comment on the adults' appearance for not being properly fit? "Sorry, Mr. Scoutmaster, you have no business being here looking like that. Come back when you meet the regular standard of the height/weight requirements." After all, by the time someone gets to be Scoutmaster, he or she should know what's going on, and doesn't deserve any slack. Beavah

But I have to ask which standard is more important -- A Scout is Courteous or A Scout Wears Official Pants? Yah, this is the rub, eh? For my part, I wonder what da SM and former SM would have done if the OA election team had behaved in the same way they did. "I'm sorry, Mr. Scoutmaster and Former Scoutmaster, it's not your place to be speaking to us. That's properly the role of your SPL. And what's with the belly? Yeh don't look like a proper scouter at all. Don't yeh take "physically strong" seriously in this troop? Since you clearly don't care about the BSA's standards for youth leadership or values, your troop isn't worthy enough for us to conduct an OA election at this time. Now, if it were up to us, we'd ban your troop from OA until you have been (re-) trained and meet the standard expected of a truly youth-run program and you can actually pass da height/weight requirements. But if the two of you stand over there in the corner facing the wall quietly for the rest of the meeting, then I guess we will tolerate this breach for now. But dude, lay off the donuts and hit the gym. Your appearance and behavior is an embarrassment when yeh should be settin' an example." I wonder how those adults would have felt. Do unto others and all that, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I think we would get better results if the local school boards and the administration buildings full of untrained, uneducated political hacks and nepotistic appointments Must be a southern thing. There's no federal constitutional duty with respect to education. Quite da opposite, most legal scholars and conservatives argue that the 10th amendment prohibits the federal government from exercising jurisdiction over education, and quite a few conservatives would like to see da federal education department dissolved. The notion of federalizing education in da way you suggest is almost exclusively a Democrat/liberal one. Now, I do agree with yeh that when yeh look at many rural and most urban districts, yeh get the sort of corruption and nonsense yeh describe. The less well educated a populace is, the less good they do at electing competent people. I reckon that's why yeh get Democrat "elite" types who want to play great white savior and take away local control for the people's own good. And yeh have to admit that when yeh look at D.C. or Detroit or some of da districts you describe, there seems to be merit to that. But there is an alternative, eh? There's what we do for colleges. Let the student and family choose. Provide scholarships that they can use wherever they go, even if it's the University of Notre Dame or Harvard instead of Oklahoma State. There's a reason we have a college and university system that's the envy of da world, eh? It's because we don't use the Soviet Economic Model at that level of education. Beavah

Beavah, keep in mind, the military isn't a blunt instrument. Yah, jrush, just gotta disagree with yeh. I'm with Colin Powell and the entire international policy community on this, eh? Military force is an extremely blunt instrument, incapable of any sort of precisely managed or nuanced outcome. It is an important tool of policy, but it's a hammer, eh? Yeh don't use it for surgery. Not to put a damper on things, but we support most of those Arab dictators specifically because they a) are strategically motivated to sell us oil and b) have little use for extremist islam, neither of which might be true of these populist movements. LOL! What are yeh smokin'? The Saudis are probably the number one funder of extremist Wahhabi Islam on the planet. It wasn't the Iraqis or da Iranians who flew jets into buildings, eh? Most of those folks were Saudis, funded by an expat member of the Saudi royal family. That's the danger of havin' a naive strategy of supporting temporary stability with dictator "friends" from the House of Saud to Muammar. Our money goes to the pockets of those who are opposed to everything we believe; our dollars are used to oppress people who quite naturally become our sworn enemies. OPEC is not benevolent, eh? Again, I'm an old fashioned sort. I believe in doin' the right thing, not doin' what's right for me. The young folks in the Arab world are on the right side of history, and more importantly are on da right side of liberty and justice. The US is going to be very careful about supporting popular uprisings in the middle east...that whole "be careful what you wish for". If we do hold back, which we might, then I reckon it shows our inherent cowardice and lack of conviction. We are the Land of the Regulated and da Home of the Fearful these days. Can't buy a ladder without regulatory warning stickers, and can't support our own values for fear that something bad might happen if another people become free instead of being held at gunpoint by despots and lunatics. Shame on us for such cowardice and hypocrisy. What do yeh suppose is goin' to happen when these young people win? Demographics and time are on their side. Are they goin' to remember us as the people who supported 'em in their quest from afar, as the people of Poland do? Even today yeh can't travel in Poland without feeling welcomed as an American, because we were unwavering in our support for their liberty. Or are the young in the middle east to remember that it was American-made guns and tanks that shot their brothers and sisters and sons and daughters, with our quiet approval? Which do yeh suppose is in our "strategic interest?" Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I reckon everyone here knows how much I hate da khaki shirt over blue jeans. Drives me a bit nuts. But I'm wise enough to recognize that's my own personal hangup, datin' from growin' up in a bygone era where jeans were "work clothes" for laborers. Nowadays, jeans the kids wear are like as not more expensive and tailored than any of my dress/casual pants. The thing I always try to remind myself is that Scouting is a game, and the methods are just tools, eh? If there's any method that I'd like to see done "full", it's Patrol Method. But I know that most troops do only half-Patrol Method, if that. I also really enjoy full outdoor-method troops, that run a full weekend trip a month, plus extra day trips, with a couple weeks of camp and a couple high adventure trips, and not a single one being basic trailer car camping. But I know that most troops do only partial outdoor method. In fact, it often seems to me that the troops that do the best at a few methods are weaker on some of da others. The most outdoorsy are weakest on the uniform; the best uniformed are often the most adult-run. So long as their kids are having fun and achieving the Aims, I think they're all doin' fine. What one unit does with uniforms and ceremonies another accomplishes with real patrol responsibility and cohesiveness. Nobody's perfect, and every group naturally plays to it's own strengths. A full uniform can be a wonderful symbol that shows outwardly what we are developin' inwardly. It can also become a bit of an idol, eh? Somethin' that encourages snobbishness or poor behavior toward visitors who don't look the same as us. Much as I have personal preferences and hangups like blue jeans, I try to remember that it's only a tool, and I especially should never allow the tool to get in the way of workin' with da youth. Beavah

So the money that the government unions use to elect officials (mainly democrats) comes from the union members voluntarily writing a check? Yep, da money used for lobbying or electioneering comes primarily from the PAC affiliated with da union, which is funded by union members (and others) voluntarily writing a check. Particularly for electioneering, the dues-based union activity is negligible by comparison. My understanding is that the money comes from the contribution that the employer makes to the union. That understandin' would be wrong. First, because the employer doesn't make a contribution to the union. The employee pays union dues, which might be paid as a payroll deduction. But that doesn't work like Social Security or medical insurance, eh? There is no employer contribution to union dues. Only the employee pays the union. In exchange for his/her union dues, a typical teacher gets benefits similar to the BSA's: liability coverage for themselves for school-related activities, legal representation and defense for all school and work-related incidents, job placement assistance, contract negotiation by professionals, professional development opportunities and materials, newsletters, etc. Da small amount of lobbying effort that comes from dues is very issue-specific and for the most part generically pro-education. No different than AMA dues for you, and their lobbying efforts. Unions provide a lot of service; dues are generally a pretty good deal for da members. But it's entirely the employee's money goin' to dues, not the employer's or taxpayer's. And for the real electioneering stuff through the PAC, it's direct voluntary contribution by check, not by payroll deduction. Anybody who is tellin' yeh anything different is lying to you for political gain. By the way, the real test of who pays for what is if the employer were no longer required to pay the expense, would the employee see an increase in pay equal that which had been 'deducted' from their pay. Yep, and the answer is "yes." I fail to see why it would not be better for all states to be right to work. Yah, in da modern world I tend to agree with yeh. I don't like closed shops myself, and I have never seen da rationale for the sorta odd across-employer stuff that went on in the auto industry. Now, I don't have a problem with one union representin' folks at a bunch of different shops more generally; that's just good economies of scale. Also, I hope that everyone who is touting the virtues of a union are driving a GM, Ford, or Chrysler car and not a non-union Japanese car. (I drive union made cars). LOL. Yah, well, I believe in spendin' my hard-earned dollars on the best-made car for the money. I think that has the advantage of rewardin' excellence and hard work while also being thrifty in terms of my own resources. When I give to charity, I like to give directly to charity, not do it through purchasing inferior products. Well, except perhaps for popcorn. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... For all those who feel the two SM's behavior was OK, I'm curious about your response to TwoCubDad's question, eh? Would you embarrass a guest in your home by asking them to change pants before dinner? For me, there is a profound difference between two sorts of people. Those who apply ethics to themselves, first and foremost. And those who apply ethics to others, first and foremost. To my mind, da two scouters were the latter sort, eh? Rather than askin' themselves "How should I act in this situation where OA representatives show up in partial uniform?" they focus on how they feel the OA representatives should have acted differently. Beavah

Yah, just for fun I did the JTE trainin' webcast thing early on, and I've had a small bunch of units in my area fill da things out as part of recharter, even though they were supposed to be doin' Centennial Award paperwork. I think the overall experience with the new JTE is better than the Centennial Award. That one never seemed to work, for some of the reasons folks here describe and some others as well. JTE doesn't take too much time to figure out, though some of da calculations are a bit onerous and a lot of units really don't keep the records required to do 'em right. So what tends to happen is that folks just guess, rather than go through the exercise of tryin' to pull together all the figures. Da question is whether they were just humoring me, eh? I can certainly see some unit leader or CC lookin' at the thing and havin' BD's reaction. "Why bother?" At first blush it sure looks like a bunch of time and effort for no real gain. Loosely speakin', I think the results were relatively accurate, eh? That is to say, da "gold" units I'd consider pretty solid and so on. So there's not too much wrong with da rubrics, though I had trouble with a few. So it's an improvement, but I guess in some ways I feel it's an improvement on somethin' that doesn't have much real value. It would be so nice if we could break da corporate culture of the BSA and get it to focus on providin' service to the units, and evaluatin' the quality of that. I just don't see evaluatin' the units in this way to be very helpful to the program. Beavah

Nobody is on that mailin' list, sadly. If Irving really wanted to make da documents like G2SS more sound, they'd post proposed changes for comment and benefit from da input of experienced scouters from all over the country. At least Richard and a few others are lookin' in on various discussions different places, and seem to be usin' 'em to address the more glaring issues. Of course, if Irving eventually did start listenin', what would we all have to complain about? Beavah

Yah, jrush, I reckon yeh didn't quite understand me. That's OK, I talk funny. The portion of union dues "used to elect lawmakers" or do any other kind of lobbying are voluntary and have been voluntary for more than a decade as a matter of law. So what yeh ask for was already in place for the public union members in Wisconsin. What's more, most union activity "to elect lawmakers" or do other lobbying is not done by the union directly, but rather is done by the separately funded Political Action Committee associated with the union. Those PACs are funded exclusively by voluntary contributions. So your argument is a red herring, eh? Everything that you're saying was already in place. This new move is about somethin' different, and someone is just feedin' yeh a line to get you on board, hopin' yeh don't know enough to recognized that it's just a line. The government does need a monopoly on taxpayer-provided education, though. Any program that uses that many taxpayer dollars should be controlled by elected lawmakers. At what level? That's open for debate... And here I thought yeh might be a conservative. As a conservative, I'm in favor of limited government, eh? And especially limited government control. The more yeh expand government, the more yeh endanger freedom for the average fellow, because a big government means that only the big get the ear and the attention. The more yeh expand government control, the stupider it gets. Who do yeh suppose knows more about educating Johnny Beavah? Mr. & Mrs. Beavah and Johnny's teacher, or a bureaucrat in Madison or Washington? We are the only country in the free world that does not provide public support to all education: state-run, religious-run, or private. We use da old Soviet model of economics for our K-12 educational delivery, and as a result, we get results that match those of da old Soviet economy. And yeh know the Soviets hated unions, eh? Banned 'em outright, and shot folks for joinin' when they got the chance. Nice to see we're tryin' to keep up. So I guess you'll have to explain to me how havin' some mediocre attorney who gets elected is supposed to "control" the state's education monopoly. He's got no experience in education or finance. Sure seems to me like we'd be far better off if Mr. & Mrs. Beavah controlled the education of Johnny Beavah, and professional educators were allowed to control their schools in a competitive environment. Beavah

Yeh got me, OGE. I find da foreign (and for that matter, domestic) policies of the Obama administration to be ... inscrutable. Lacking in coherence, almost random, even. This is an area where his lack of experience and managerial-style leadership really shows up. I'm old fashioned, eh? Da military is a blunt instrument, and I don't think yeh commit 'em without a clear objective. It's clear that nobody in da administration seems to know what the objective is here. "Make things better, please, so I don't have to deal with this!" seems to be it. Now, I confess that I am cheering for the young people in da middle east who are finding their voice and finally joinin' the chorus for Liberty. And I appreciate that it's always possible for a despot armed by foreign oil money from gluttonous westerners to just murder enough of da people to quell any quest for freedom. Britain might have done it to us once upon a time but for the arms and direct military intervention of France. So I'm sympathetic with the plight of our fellow scouts and scouters in da middle east who hope for a better day for their country, and I'm willin' to help... to a point. But it has to be their fight. Nuthin' would please me more than for the people of Egypt, newly strengthened by their own quest for Liberty, to come to the aid of their brothers and sisters on their border. I think if I were President Obama, I would be encouragin' and helpin' them to do that. But then if I were President and the King of Saudi Arabia sent American-made tanks and American-supported military equipment to crush a peaceful popular protest in a neighboring country that was doin' naught but pushing for (limited!) democratic reforms, I'd be tellin' the 5th fleet to sink the bastards en route before sendin' the Saudi ambassador home with a clear message on the behavior expected from a "friend" and client. As an American, I reckon I appreciate stability and cheap oil. But I stand for Liberty. Beavah

The SMs were totally out of line, including the guy who asked the boys to change. They were guests of the troop. Would you embarass a guest in your home by asking them to change pants before dinner? Yah, I agree with TwoCubDad, eh? Yeh treat guests and those givin' their time to you for free with the utmost courtesy. That's what honor requires, and these unit adults behaved dishonorably. Someone should do them the courtesy of pullin' 'em aside privately and letting them know, so they can learn and improve. Yep, it's also a learning experience for the lads, about how to represent an organization and how to act courteously as guests, eh? Guests owe a duty of respect to a host by doin' their best to follow local custom. If yeh visit a Japanese household, yeh take your shoes off; in most (but not all) American households yeh remove your hat. If you're goin' to a full-uniform troop, yeh do your best to wear the full uniform. If you're goin' to a troop that does meetings outdoors, yeh wear outdoor clothing. Someone should do the boys the courtesy of pullin' 'em aside privately and letting them know, so they can learn and improve. Of the two, I consider the former to be da worse offense. Adults should know better, and should be expected to give the better example. And in most traditions includin' the Judeo-Christian western tradition, courtesy to guests has always been a much stronger and more important value than courtesy to hosts. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Public sector unions are a conflict of interest, plain and simple. Unions negotiate their contracts with the people they help put in office. Yah, yeh know... people seem to keep sayin' this, and I just don't get it. I suppose we could solve it by denying the vote to all police, firefighters, teachers, members of the military and their families, employees of defense contractors, employees of airlines who benefit from FAA service, anybody who flies on airlines, anybody who uses roads paid for by the "government", anybody receiving Social Security or Medicare or gettin' public water or sanitation. Yeh need to understand da difference between "conflict of interest" and just plain old "interest". All of us have an interest in da programs and payments made by the government. Whether we're receiving Social Security or payin' into it, whether we're gettin' a salary through the government or just benefiting in our salary from things like copyright protection or farm subsidies or delivery by government-supported road, rail, or air. Da only "conflict" here is da ordinary one between citizens who have different interests. Citizens who work for the government expect a living wage commensurate with their education and background. Citizens who don't want to get da maximum government service without payin' for it. Especially if it's not a program that they or their friends personally use. I think as good citizens we have to begin by bein' intellectually honest, is all. This is ordinary conflict over collective social policy. It's not "conflict of interest" or any such balderdash. Now let's dispel with da other myths, eh? Payroll deductions are just payroll deductions. They don't come from the taxpayer, they come from da employee being paid. Whether it's for Social Security, Medicare, Federal or State tax withholding, the United Way, your employer's parking sticker, your share of medical insurance or your professional or union dues. And every union employee has had da right to withhold the portion of dues that goes toward political lobbying and the like for years. So the notion that it's goin' for lobbying against da will of the union member is balderdash too. Fact is, it's not that large a fraction of most union dues, because most unions solicit separate contributions to their Political Action Committees which are set up to do most of the lobbying for a number of technical legal reasons. So the notion of "involuntary political contributions" is double nonsense. Now, I get the notion that teachers aren't an unskilled labor force, eh? And traditionally in da U.S. unions have existed primarily to protect the interests of unskilled labor who individually do not have the ability or wherewithal to negotiate on reasonable footing with an employer who can easily replace 'em. If teachers expect to be treated as professionals, then it might help if they acted like 'em, and behaved more like independent contractors able to negotiate for their own salaries and working conditions. I don't think that would be a bad thing. But here's the rub. In da U.S., the State is (almost) a monopoly employer in education. That sort of situation doesn't exist in the other professions. So as long as we continue to protect a virtual state monopoly on education, then educational professionals don't have the ability to do what all other professionals are able to do. So if yeh really don't like da teachers' unions, the way to address that is not to try to run 'em out on a rail, it's to give educators back their profession. Let 'em set up their own schools to compete with each other for both kids and for teachers. Stop regulating and testing 'em to death. Abolish da public school monopoly. Yeh can't have one without the other. Government monopoly education necessitates collective work action by employees to balance the strong incentives for government abuse. If the government were to take over your industry, whatever it happens to be, you'd darn well want a union, too. Beavah

Yah, sure, unions have an interest in enforcing the contract, SP. But let's not confuse that with responsibility, eh? Besides, I thought da folks here wanted less union involvement in electing officials and controlling public policy, not more. It's the responsibility of management to live up to its side of the bargain, eh? Especially when the employer made choices for him/herself and family based on those promises. A Scout is Trustworthy and Loyal, eh? Thrifty, too. You know: Timeless Values. We elected people who weren't honest or thrifty, and they made promises on our behalf. It was our job as citizens to monitor that, not the unions. All of us. And since we didn't, it's our job as citizens and taxpayers not to welch on promises that were made in our name. Beavah

Yah, somehow I think comparin' BSA online and seat-time training to 10 years of medical school, internship, and surgical residency is a bit much, eh?

How can you deliver the promise if you have never been told what it is? Pithy, but not necessarily applicable, eh? We have books. They lay out da "promise" pretty well. Don't most scouters know how to read? We have da live community. Yeh come into a troop and yeh do what the kids do. Yeh learn by watching and doing, under the guidance of others. We have da virtual community, where yeh can write and read and discuss and learn all kinds of things about "da promise." The notion that seat-time in one of da scripted live-training sessions is necessary might be a bit much, especially since da quality of these is so spotty. I encourage everybody to take training and learn more. Not just BSA training but ARC and ACA and all da rest. But I'm realistic about it, eh? BSA training is just not very effective and often not a productive use of some folks' time, and resentful folks rarely learn a thing at "mandatory" training. Far better to work with folks and direct 'em toward any resources or programs that will help 'em and that they can buy into as being worth their investment of time and treasure. Beavah

States certainly have the right to be right to work or not but I see no logic in not being a right to work state. It is more democratic. Yah, sure, as long as yeh make everybody right-to-work. Private as well as public. That's just not the case in Wisconsin, which has strong protections for private unionization and some public sector unions. Now, I'm generally a proponent of right-to-work type laws, but yeh have to go into that with eyes wide open. Da flipside is that for those to work, employers have to be ethical and responsible. Yeh have to build up a strong culture of business ethics. Da sort of managers that take bigger cuts to their own pay and benefits before they ever ask "their people" for a dime. When yeh don't have employers who are ethical and responsible, either because they're just chasin' the quarterly earnings number for their stock option boost or because they're taxpayers who just want to get service for nothing, well, then yeh need a stronger presence on da other side of the table. Yah, yah, the best and brightest unmarried workers can always dump a bad employer and move elsewhere. But da rest of the folks - the married folks whose wives are in other jobs, whose parents are ill or need local support, whose kid might be sick and need the insurance, who are underwater on their mortgage and can't afford to leave - they need representation if they're sittin' across from an unethical employer. And I think we know that not every private employer is the best, and that the government ain't always a paragon of virtue either. Just look how we've treated some of our men and women in uniform, while givin' 3x the pay to "private contractor" mercenaries for safer, easier jobs. I reckon they need a union. Beavah

Yah, interestin'. I agree with everybody. What's interestin' is that nobody has mentioned da parallels to Scouting. In Scouting, we see the benefits of active, supported parents in kids' lives. We also see the downside of inappropriately active "helicopter" parents in kids' lives. Like teachers, we are torn between wanting to encourage parents to engage, and being gun-shy about da small subset of parents whose engagement is disruptive. Like teachers and school administrators, most good scouters are a bit conflict-adverse, and don't hold the line on disruptive parents or misbehaving, low-performing kids as well as we should. In Scouting, we see da benefits of those magical people, da adult Scouters who really know the woods and who really love sharin' it with kids. We know that just one of 'em can have a huge impact on many lives. We know how little pay, how little thanks, and how much grief they get, and how much it means when even one former scout says "Thanks." And in Scoutin' we see many adults who are well-meaning but just go through the motions, eh? Who give out A's ... I mean badges like candy. Who follow the textbook blindly and without really understandin'. Who won't do patrol hikes or youth leadership because of the tyranny of low expectations. Yah, and then, like teaching, we in Scoutin' occasionally see the scouter who should be fired but who hangs on because nobody has the gumption to do it. In Scouting, we see the benefits of stability, eh? Havin' one basic curriculum guide that doesn't change much, havin' a unit that retains adults and kids year after year. Our weakest units are always da ones with high turnover. Just like our weakest schools and school districts are da ones with the most disruption and "reform" and highest turnover. In Scouting, we promote a small amount of training, and we all recognize that it doesn't amount to much. But we extol and promote it as the answer to all problems. I reckon da same thing is true in schools, eh? They have a bit of teacher "professional development" which each year is supposed to solve all problems. They even require it, but it never seems to really accomplish much. Folks who really love kids and love their subject just tend to figure things out. Those that don't really love their subject or don't really grok kids no amount of "training" will ever help. In Scouting, we've got some really impressive programs, a lot of OK programs of various sorts, some grade-inflation/badge-mill weak programs, and some programs on life support. But most all get "Quality Unit" even if we have to inflate da numbers to do it. Same with schools, eh? And just like with schools, urban Scouting just seems to mostly fail. If anybody decided to implement a standardized Scouting test, I reckon we'd all be surprised by how many of our Eagle Scouts did poorly on it. Because we all know just how much we "teach to the requirements" rather than teach for real proficiency. If there were an international comparison test, I expect our best kids would compare with da best kids other places, but on average we'd be less fit and less skilled than fellow nations. Just like da schools. Da only thing that's different between Scouting and the schools is that in Scouting, we encourage kids and families to go find a unit that's a good fit. We don't force kids to attend da unit closest to them, or demand that the family pay a quarter of their annual income per child if they want to attend da better troop down the road. If a troop isn't workin' out, we try to find 'em a new one that will be better. Yah, and we expect da family to be payin' their way, mostly, or at least have some financial skin in da game. So I reckon for the most part we have da same challenges as the schools, eh? And we do about as well. Where we see motes in da schools' eyes, I reckon if we take a moment we'll recognize da same planks in our own. Now I wonder... "What's the best way to improve Scouting?" If we succeed at that, then maybe we can go teach those edumacators in the schools a thing or two. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The job of government is to act, within the applicable Constitutions, to enact the political will of the majority of the electorate. Yah, hmmm.... That bein' the case, it sure seems from da polling data in Wisconsin that the Republican majority failed to live up to their obligation, because what they chose to do clearly wasn't the will of the majority. I reckon that's the problem with our modern politics, eh? It's become so polarized, so us-vs-them, win-at-all-costs that regular ordinary civic-minded Americans have no one to vote for. They only end up with people to vote against. So they voted out the borrow-and-spend-and-bailout-and-micromanage-a-war Republicans in 2006 and 2008, then they voted out the Obamacare-liberal-president-doesn't-look-like-me-big-government Democrats in 2010. Then, at least in Wisconsin, they'll vote da Republicans out again the next go-round. So as scouts and scouters, what we have to ask ourselves is "Is this what citizenship is really supposed to mean?" Yah, da voters of Wisconsin can strip rights from some public workers that are accorded to other public workers and to privately employed citizens. What's missing is da Scout Oath and Law question. Should they? Is that fair or reasonable? Remember, the current administration in Wisconsin has cut taxes on those who tend to finance the Republican Party in da face of a deficit, gotten concessions from public employees sufficient to balance da budget anyway, and then stripped the bargaining rights only of those public employees unions whose members tend to vote for the other party. Is that da sort of behavior that we want to hold up to others as being American values? So that next time if the Dems win, they can strip the benefits and bargaining rights of Republican-leaning police and firefighters and prison workers and restore 'em to teachers and secretaries and custodians? Is that really da will of the people? Screw da other guy? What's missing is Statesmanship, eh? And ethics. The end doesn't justify the means, and the means here just aren't ethically sound or responsible. Yeh protect da rights of others, yeh respect others and yeh prior agreements because that's what's honorable, and that's what makes for good citizenship. It's the means, how we choose to act toward each other, that makes America strong. It doesn't matter what the electorate wanted 20 years ago in regards to the power of public employee unions, it matters what they want now. Now I don't really think that's what they want now, and I think da polling supports me on that. But if this really were the case, if da average American really felt it's OK to hire someone to work for them and then shaft 'em because they could get away with it and save themselves a few bucks, then I reckon that's a problem. It's always a temptation, eh? It's always goin' to be tempting, after da public and our elected representative mismanaged negotiations and pension funds to pass laws to renege on those promises and contracts. Like it's somehow da workers' fault and not ours for the behavior of our elected public officials, eh? The responsibility of honorable people and citizens is to never let that happen. To treat those whom we employ with dignity and respect; to own up to our own mistakes and those of the people we elected and to make good. To sacrifice as needed so as not to compromise our souls. Used to be da Republicans stood for such values. Some of us still do. Beavah

Yah, in da threads on education lots of people talk about bad teachers and how hard they are to fire, eh? So in some states yeh get the Dance of the Lemons, where teachers who get pushed out of one district go to another, and no one is willing to tell the new district about da problems. So another set of kids gets the shaft. Follow the Golden Rule, SMT224. Would you as SM want to know about the lad's history if he were transferring into your troop? Would yeh feel it's important information to have to keep your kids safe or your program on track? Or to do right by the boy, by havin' the proper supervision and support in place? If not, then let it be. If so, then how can yeh possibly refrain from sharin' that information with a fellow Scoutmaster? Hopefully, all he'll say is that yep, they know about it, the parents gave them permission to talk to the counselor, and they feel comfortable proceeding. But if not, then I reckon if something then happened in the other troop that could have been prevented..... well, sure as shootin' you'd feel awful about it, and rightly so. In fact, honor may demand yeh turn in your badge of office for failure to live up to the Oath and Law. In Scouting, we don't do the Dance of the Lemons, eh? We work with each other to help and support the program and the safety and growth of all the boys. Beavah