Beavah

Beaver is absolutely wrong about "real live kids" making anyone "less convinced" of the Boy Scout program as Baden-Powell and Bill Hillcourt describe it. Yah, I would be wrong, if that's what I had said . I said it kept yeh from becoming "too convinced" and strident. That to my mind is da issue. Learnin' about "storming and norming" or any of those other management theories isn't a bad thing. It might give yeh an insight or an idea that helps. It's when yeh start takin' that stuff as gospel that it gets silly. Same applies all around, eh? I reckon that your current "biggest troop in da county" doesn't match your vision, and even has some WB21C'ers, but still does an OK job. "Real live kids" prove that when you pick the best natural leaders and separate their Patrols by 300 feet, Scouting begins to work just the way Baden-Powell and Bill Hillcourt describe it, even with Scouts who have never experienced the Patrol Method before. Anybody can do that. Yah, hmmm... That's a testable hypothesis. I don't think "anybody" can do it, eh? I don't think "anybody" can pick da best natural leaders. In fact, I offer as evidence your congress and da officials in your BSA district. . I don't think just "anybody" will let those rogueish lads lead. Nor can "anybody" develop da skills and character in both boys and parents that will allow boys to be on their own without windin' up in court or hospital at some point. Or just bein' removed or quitting under da pressure of a parent backlash. "Real live kids" prove that you can register 28% of an auditorium full of skeptical boys if you offer them the kind of adventure that Baden-Powell and Bill Hillcourt describe (a total of 70% will sign your list in front of their peers). That is above and beyond the best efforts of what Wood Badge trained volunteers and professionals can do, which is what? 2%? 4%? 8%? Yah, except anecdote is not da same thing as data, eh? Yeh did that once, in one location. I can point to even more impressive one-shot successes, includin' a crew that in one year recruited over 60% of a high school. Do it a dozen more times in different locations and then yeh might have somethin'. Otherwise it's still a great success story, but a fluke. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Maybe it would be good to give a definition of what you mean by mixed-aged when all are the same age except one new guy doesn't really fit. Yah, hmmm... So you're in a start-up (or re-start) situation? Those are always interestin', but yeh can't use 'em to describe a "normal" ongoing or mature program. The experiences are very different. Sorry I missed da intent of your smillie. What happened to your recruitin' this year? Startups are always hard, and the recruitin' piece can be the hardest. B

they felt her sexual activity and resulting out-of-marriage pregnancy was directly violating the fundamental principles and tenets of the BSA Yah, hmmm... I suppose they would have liked it better if the young lady would have quietly gone behind her parents' back for an abortion? I am a sinner and the son of sinners, eh? We all make mistakes. At the same time, sexual picadillos can cost someone their job and reputation. It's not somethin' we want to hold out as an example. For me, the line between mercy/compassion and justice/example turns on whether the young lady recognizes and admits her mistake and resolves to do her best to do better, eh? For the crew, she can either become a poor example ("look what I got away with") or a great example ("let me tell you, you don't want to make the same mistake that I did, but if you do, you need to live up to your obligations"). I agree, however, with the rest of the folks. Yeh need to go have a sit-down with your IH (institutional head - the CEO of your chartered organization) ASAP. Your COR should be settin' it up. This is one of those things that's goin' to blow-back on the Chartered Organization one way or another, so they get to make the call. You and the committee work for them, not for the nattering parents. Quite frankly, on this sort of values decision, da CO should remove anyone from registered positions who doesn't salute and go along. Beavah

Yah, Kudu's a good fellow, eh? And quite da champion for patrol method. I think he lost some wit and perspective when he stopped workin' with kids because life happened. That's often a problem with district and council scouters too, eh? The more remote yeh get from the boys, the more yeh can get a bit too strident about form and policy, rather than practical working substance. It's the curse of commissioners, eh (leastways, the ones who weren't appointed as warm bodies). Commissioners should be goin' on at least one campout a month with different units, rollin' up their sleeves and doin' some active work not just kibitzing. I wish Kudu would start up a troop and crew again to practice and refine his notions. Real live kids help keep us from bein' too convinced and strident about our pet theories. WB ain't perfect by any means, but then what is? Beavah

I often wonder how many 12 year-old young scouts get this kind of opportunity in a mixed-age patrol. Huh? You're a one-patrol troop, eh? Your 12-year-old is in a mixed-age patrol by definition. Da real issue is that in a small troop, young fellows might get opportunities for a troop position like popcorn guy that would be taken by older scouts in a larger troop. The trick in a bigger troop is tryin' to maintain the mixed-age collaborative experience you've got goin' now on a bigger scale. I'm with Eagledad. Train your BORs. Beavah

Yah, thanks for da reviews. I haven't seen it yet. What's with the sudden surge of scouty movies? Me, I'm waitin' with breathless anticipation for "Boy Scouts vs. Zombies" http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=69822 Beavah

As long as the NSP is all under FC rank, why would anyone ever consider putting them out in the field without adults, 300' away from any assistance. So we all agree that a NSP is not a "real" patrol, because those are things that a real patrol would do. A NSP is a Webelos 3 den, with an adult Den Leader (ASM-NSP) and a more active Den Chief (TG). Being in a mixed patrol means those boys would not have an opportunity to try out any leadership until they were well into the program ... They should have been learning all along. I just don't get da "rotate" and "try out leadership" bit. Leadership is somethin' that develops with practice. For those who actually have experience with mixed age patrols, yeh recognize that the middlin' age boys really do develop and practice increasing levels of leadership all throughout their time in scouting. They're the ones as second-year scouts who are showin' the first year scouts how to set up a tent or givin' 'em tips on the side about how to keep their gear dry. As a third-year scout they're the ones who take a new fellow under their wing as sous-chef at dinner, teachin' dutch oven technique or how to do stir fry without makin' a mess. As a fourth-year APL they're the ones takin' lead on hikes while the PL takes sweep, and helpin' the PL out in his planning and PLC duties. They don't have to wait until they're eventually chosen as a TG to start leadin' and teachin'. Meanwhile, in da same-age setup, the lad is sitting around waiting for his eventual turn at leadership. His same-age buddies don't need his help. If there's a strong (or just more popular) same-age PL who likes the job, the lad might never get to lead unless the adults force a leadership "rotation"... or push da SPL to create a token job like Librarian in a digital age. If eventually he does rotate into a position, he's either tryin' to lead peers, which is hard, or to lead younger guys without having built up experience workin' with younger guys, which is hard. Granted, this is less of a problem for a small unit like jblake's than for a larger troop. The PL rotates the boys through the APL position so as to give each one of them a taste of what is necessary to run the patrol. This quote I think is da difference in a nutshell. In an adult-directed troop, the adults are all about giving kids "tastes" and "experiences". That was a great experience! A MB should be a "taste" of a discipline. In a youth-run, patrol-method troop, it's all about the kids becoming experienced. Look what I can do, on my own! A MB should demonstrate proficiency, not just be a taste, because that's what's required to be on their own. Gettin' the boys to be experienced takes a lot more time and practice, eh? It needs to be a longer-term Patrol Leader Development project, not a 3-hour TLT where yeh give 'em job descriptions and a taste of da structure. And a lot of that is about observation, not instruction. Yeh learn a lot more effectively that way. And that's uncomfortable for most adults. We feel more comfortable being the teacher or the Wizard of Oz. The PL whispers to the APL "what should we do next"... the SPL whispers to the PL "what should we do next"... the SM whispers to the SPL "what should we do next?". Whisper from behind the curtain and let your mouthpiece youth "leader" talk. Yeh can seemingly do a lot that way, eh? The youth are up front, but we're still instructing. Now jblake describes a fine unit, eh? What I would call a strong scouting program, youth led, and patrol method in many things. I expect his kids really do become experienced at some things, eh? Still adult directed (but youth run) in others. One in which the adults and older scouts teach classes and instruct to bring up the younger fellows in a troop-method style, and then the (older) patrols can camp patrol-method style. That's the big point, eh? The troop provides the instruction and resources that the young fellows need, not the patrol. The patrol can eventually be on its own for some things, like camping.... but it can't be on its own for training or being responsible for new members. That's something restricted to adults and adult mouthpieces. Those "patrol yells" and identities don't get passed down by one patrol member to another. Often times such patrols even when they hit high adventure are still in the "have experiences" rather than "become experienced" mode, eh? High adventure is really just another way for the adults to stay in charge of instruction, to whisper "what's next?" in da ear of the PL. Fine program, great kids. One I would recommend. But I'd gently encourage 'em to consider moving beyond troop method for instruction as well as activity. [Edited to add: Doubled with Eagledad's post. Hee hee, wasn't meanin' to be discourteous. Probably should have just smiled and moved on, eh? I'm just passionate about this scoutin' stuff, and want so much to help people see somethin' new. Downright stubborn about it, I am. My bad!](This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, jackmessick, it's hard for anyone not seein' your situation with your eyes to tell if it's time to move on, eh? When it's no longer fun or no longer worth your unpaid time, I reckon. On da hopeful side, however, my experience has been that most of da time, a Scoutmaster who takes the long view is able to outlast and out-achieve any typical troop parents / parent-run committee. It takes patience, and a sense of humor, and more effort on dealin' with adults than those of us who volunteer for kids sometimes like, but generally speakin' those that do the work control the outcome, eh? And that means the SM. Yeh do it in small ways. Slowly selectin', training, and sending kids to MBCs who "get" the program, slowly droppin' the MBC registrations of others through the district or just lettin' 'em fade for lack of use. Givin' your time and attention to the parents and kids who want good scoutin', recruiting them for positions or just usin' 'em for help and gently shuntin' others to the side. Parents who are focused on MB's I find by and large are a self-centered lot. Yeh can help fill their need by highlighting other Methods for communication and recognition. Start writin' blogs up about outings where yeh mention what different kids did on the outing and suddenly junior participatin' in the outing carries more weight. Add a "big deal" award for outing-related stuff (maybe making every outing for a full year) and you'll see that. Encourage patrol competition and start issuing awards and blogs on that, and suddenly Patrol Method means more to those parents who are focused on recognitions. Eagledad sometimes says that about half da SM's time needs to be spent strokin' parents, and while I don't like da notion and think his percentage is a touch high, it really isn't that far off. But just like with kids, reward da parental behaviors yeh want with your time and attention, and let da others go. Yeh will need to be willing to lose some kids and adults, eh? But that's OK. Yeh won't win everything, leastways not right away. But that's OK, too. Only you can decide if yeh can have fun doin' that while workin' with the kids, and whether it's worth your volunteer time. Beavah

This way one has boys working with the NSP directly rather than adults who tend to take over and run the show in the NSP. So instead yeh have the TG/PL take over and run the show. And then rotate an APL through, which as jet describes doesn't accomplish much besides ensure that no boy learns enough to be able to challenge the TG/PL. How does that develop leadership in the young fellows? Again, can anybody point me anywhere in da universe that suggests it's possible to learn anything, let alone leadership, by being rotated through a temporary, short-term stint-with-a-title like this? Yeh certainly won't find it in any scoutin' material. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, how weird to click page 2 of my news media thread and find myself smoking marijuana. Then we look to news outlets that justify those opinions and discount outlets that challenge them. The problem now is we have news outlets that satisfy those needs and don't offer a reasonable challenge. Part of my reason for askin', eh? But there's a different reason, too. I'm not just lookin' for challenge/alternate viewpoints, lookin' for good research and data! There's so much blathering "opinion" flyin' about that it's hard to find a consolidated source for well-researched, informative description with limited commentary. In that way, my experience is da same as vol_scouter's, eh? In the fields that I know well, I can't find anybody who is doin' a good job of providing cogent, in-depth, intelligent, data-based reporting outside da specialty services and journals. So I assume that they're doin' as completely inept a job in fields that I don't know as well. I'd like some good science reportin' without havin' to become a scientist and pore through science journals, for example. I shouldn't have to rely on packsaddle and vol_scouter. Beavah

But...the sentence is about Wikileaks, and I'm not sure that Wikileaks is a Domestic Business. I was referrin' to the State Department giving directives to PayPal, which is a domestic business. The issue has nothin' to do with who the end beneficiary is, eh? Do yeh want the State Department trying to intimidate a U.S. corporation into not doing business with [insert name here] whom they happen to disagree with? If the State Department doesn't Catholic Charities because it interferes with the U.S. efforts to encourage population control in Africa, can it tell PayPal and MasterCard not to allow U.S. citizens to make donations to Catholic Charities International? Da issue has nothin' to do with Wikileaks, it has to do with constitutionally questionable behavior by da Obama administration. What they're doin' to Wikileaks now they can do to someone else tomorrow. I, too, found da unjustified expansion of the OFAC list durin' the Bush administration to be highly problematic. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Well, my experience comes from overseeing the programs of 35 troops Only 35? For only 2 years? I think yeh need to spend some more time observin' carefully, AvidSM. I think you're probably mixin' up issues of adult leadership with issues of program structure. Of the two, the former are the 800 lb. gorilla, eh? Program only matters in small ways. I would advise my troop leaders to try using NSP's and rotate its PL every month. Why would yeh advise 'em to do something completely contrary to the BSA program materials like rotate PLs? Go back and read "ages and stages", and look at where a 10-11 year old is at. Then pick up any book about youth and adult leadership. If yeh can find anything anywhere that actually suggests that being rotated through a one-month "leadership" opportunity like what you're talkin' about is a good idea, I'll eat my campaign hat. Beavah

Yah, nice job mikecummings157. On behalf of a grateful nation, thank you for your hard work and effort with our upcoming citizens! Beavah

Yah, my experience is da same as Eagle 1982. Just make the patrols a bit larger, based on your average attendance. If your average attendance is 50%, then patrols should be twice as large. The "high level" patrol notion poses both some merits and some possible pitfalls, as described. B

Yah, jblake and AvidSM, all I can say is that just like Eagledad, my real, live experience with multiple troops and lots of kids doesn't support da theory. Yeh mostly seem to be just trying to imagine this without actually having any experience with it. The "treat like slaves" thing tends only to happen in troops where the adults aren't very good at relatin' to kids and teaching the Scout Oath and Law, eh? Has relatively little to do with patrol structure, but it's a bit more prevalent in da troops where the newbies are in the separate, low-prestige group. The young guys in a mixed patrol know everybody. Why wouldn't they? With a younger patrol relying on outsiders for support, yeh are essentially breaking the patrol method. Rather than being truly independent, yeh need to insert more adult presence or older-boy-acting-like-adult. With a young PL, yeh have to do it for safety if nothing else. Yep, in a mixed patrol yeh might have a boy or two who aren't into teaching, but that's OK. Their example and support is still there for learnin' and safety. Just like non-leader followers are valuable, non-teacher leaders are valuable. Remember, there are other ways to learn besides having an adult or TG hold a class. B

Yah, ProudEagle, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. As SA says, if the actions of the government and the actions of a private citizen are both contrary to sound judgment and proper behavior, then it's the government that you should worry about, because it has more power to do real harm. Da bigger the government, the greater the potential harm. The Executive should not be allowed to curtail the livelihood and liberty of individuals it disagrees with by international lobbying, political pressure, and interference in the private right to contract. We can all point to an occasional anti-abortion protester who crosses the line, eh? Are yeh ready for the Obama administration to tell PayPal, MasterCard, and Visa that they can no longer accept and forward donations to the National Right to Life because the administration doesn't like them, or they maybe did something that we really can't even make a criminal case about but we felt was "harmful to our interests"? Are yeh ready for the Obama administration pressuring web services providers to disable all of the Tea Party websites and block access internationally because they are critical of the president and one Tea Party member posting might have said something that could possibly have been interpreted as a threat against the President? That's what we're talkin' about here. We defend the liberty of even those who don't follow da Oath and Law because it is our duty to God and Country to defend Liberty. Beavah

Interestin' notion, thriftyscout. I know of one troop that talked about doin' something like that (even more aggressive, in fact). There was a lot of interest in patrol(s) where scouting was their "sport" and they played to a higher level. If I recall correctly, the problem was enough adult commitment. It's hard for volunteer adults to give the same time as paid professional coaches and band directors. Give it a whirl and let us know how it goes, eh?! Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... This took another turn toward da strange today, with the U.S. State Department pressuring PayPal to not accept WikiLeaks donations or payments, claiming that Wikileaks is engaged in "illegal activity". First, the State Department has no business interferin' with a domestic business, nor should it be assuming what is the proper role of the Justice Department. Second, the government should not be able to disrupt private banking transactions being undertaken by citizens without a court finding. So I've now moved firmly over to WikiLeaks side. Yeh should never let the Executive Branch take the livelihood or liberty of private citizens without due process and the considered judgment of the Judicial Branch and a jury of citizens. Otherwise the Executive can simply "defund" people with opinions it doesn't like, by curtailing their access to the private banking system. This sort of abuse by the Obama administration is unconscionable. Beavah

I have done hikes the week before I have taken the troop just to check conditions...... I have camped places before I have taken a group. This is a fine thing, eh? I'd just add that it's good to take your youth leaders with yeh. SPL/ASPL, or even better the PLs. They should be the ones checking conditions and becoming familiar so that they can lead their guys safely, as SM224 suggests. Beavah

Strange, but they naturally divided themselves up pretty much by age. Of course they did. They've pretty much been forced by adults into age-based groups since they were young. It's a management technique adults use for school and sports. As youth activities have become more and more adult-organized, da age stratification thing has become more and more pronounced. By contrast, kids left on their own in a neighborhood mix a fair bit. I remember pick-up baseball games from my youth that involved boys of multiple grades. Yeh even made up rules like adding extra strikes for the younger fellows just to even things out. I'm not surprised yeh had the experience yeh did with jambo. Boys who are used to same-age environments do develop a caste system by age as you describe, and there tends to be more hazing and lookin' down on the younger fellows. The younger guys are "them", not "us". Da parents of lads in mixed-age troops tend to come to appreciate it pretty quickly, actually. It's "cool" to have 7th and 8th grade friends when yeh first move into middle school. Makes that hard transition for a boy just a bit easier. It's reassuring to have junior and senior friends as a freshman. They tell yeh all the secrets about what classes to take or avoid, who is easy or hard and all that stuff. They invite yeh to join a team or an extracurricular activity. Works wonders for a lad who is shy or has special needs. Beavah

70 million people (give or take) voted for Obama's agenda. Nah. 70 million people voted for Obama. Some of those supported his agenda, some supported an agenda they thought he was pushing even though when yeh read between the lines he was more moderate, and quite a few just voted against George Bush, John McCain, or against the prospect of having Sarah Palin next in line. I think there was an element of race on the liberal side, eh? Lots of folks assumed that because he was African-American out of Chicago his agenda must be far liberal left, and that he was tacking back toward the center just for campaign purposes. So now they feel betrayed. And, ironically, the other side still feels that he is looney left, even though his track record hasn't been that at all. What's surprisin' to me isn't the moderate stuff, it's the lack of effectiveness. And the communication thing is a big part of it. Reagan wasn't always a great orator. There were books full of his gaffes. But he was a great communicator. Obama is a great orator, and it's hard to find many verbal gaffes. But he's not a great communicator. Beavah

The CEO of an organization does not need to know what Joe Shmoe is doing in the plant. Why are we talkin' CEOs? We're talkin' about a kids' program. In a CEO-run top-down organization, you're tryin' to produce widgets, not growth in people. Da organizations that produce growth in people tend to be structured flatter. Jblake, I think yeh have a notion that if a youth TG or SPL sets up a class to teach, or starts directing other "subordinate" youth around that that is youth run. In other words, youth run should look like having youth mimic what adults do in school or business (which always requires adult direction, because youth would never really go there themselves). In that world, only a few become leaders... leastways, unless yeh do the even more odd thing of "rotating" leadership so that everyone gets a turn. I agree with yeh, the current BSA program materials push yeh that way, complete with titles, job descriptions, and organization charts. The more natural way is the "gang" of B-P or Bill Hillcourt. Older and younger fellows all mixed up; young ones trying to earn their stripes, middle ones being good followers and adding experience, older ones steppin' up to responsibility and leadership. Ironically, the natural way is also the more youth-run and the safer way. Mixed age means the patrol has a lot of experience and strength to rely on, and only a few fellows who need support. In da CEO-style approach, yeh need "policies" and "professional development seminars" and "supervision". Beavah

Mixed patrols must cater to their lowest common denominator in order to remain together. If little Joey can't handle the trip, 1) he stays home or 2) someone in the patrol babysits him on the event. Nah, not the way it works in the troops that do it. It works da way I described in the canoe example above, eh? The whole patrol goes on the harder trip, with the older scouts taking real responsibility for leadership and instruction and the middle-aged scouts for being good team members and examples and the younger fellows for workin' hard to live up to their role. Those young guys are our patrol, we would never leave 'em behind! In fact, little Mikey won the patrol competition for us last week because he was light enough to be lifted on my shoulders and jump over da obstacle, and Jimmy totally wasted that kid from the Shark Patrol in building a fire! The older boys are proud of helpin' the younger ones achieve. I think yeh make the mistake of believing that older boys want packaged high adventure trips. I don't think that's the case. I think they want real responsibility. In a NSP environment, yeh give real responsibility to one Troop Guide. In a mixed age patrol environment, yeh give real responsibility to each PL, APL, and patrol member. They'll hang around long enough to get their Eagle and then they're history. Under this mixed system, I don't blame them one bit. But da funny thing is, I've never seen it happen that way. I've seen and worked with a lot of troops, eh? And the ones that do the Eagle-and-out thing are always from da same-age patrol world. There's just not enough real responsibility and leadership opportunity for 'em. So maybe if yeh run a high adventure program they come back for that, then wander off again. High schoolers are ready to stand out, to be looked up to. In a same-age patrol, that means one guy gets to do that. In a mixed age patrol troop, all of the older boys get to do that. In fact, I've never seen a same-age-patrol unit that doesn't have to start "consolidating" patrols by early high school because of attrition. Then where does Patrol Method go? On the other hand if the older boys don't want that responsibility, but prefer to do nothing but plan and go on HA, why not? Yah, hmmm.... perhaps because that doesn't develop the same sort of servant leadership that the unit wants to build in terms of developing character. Maybe that's the difference here, eh? Da troops I like the best are the ones that really develop that in the boys. But I understand if other troops don't have that same goal. I do think yeh have to make room for some older-boy only stuff. In a mixed-age patrol system, that's the PLC/Leadership Corps/Venture patrol (run as a pull-out). The PLCs tend to develop more collegiality, because they aren't burdened by havin' a know-nothing NSP PL and a few immature 7th and 8th graders on 'em to drag things down and make meetings/planning a hassle. Otherwise in mixed patrols, half the patrol goes to summer camp and the other half goes to Philmont. Nah, the whole patrol goes to summer camp, but perhaps the whole summer camp is run by the PLs, with independent patrol outings and inter-patrol competitions and such, instead of leaving all of the young scouts to be baby-sat by the adults. Maybe a bunch of fellows also do Philmont, but they wouldn't want to miss camp. They're needed. As yeh know, I'm mostly agnostic about how troops set things up. I support troops that do things every which way. The right sort of adult leader with vision can make almost any setup work, and the wrong sort of adult leader can cause any approach to fail. But if yeh were to ask me to choose what I think works best for the lads independent of the personality of the adult leaders, I'd prefer the mixed age setup. I reckon there's a good reason we did Boy Scouting that way for 80 years before the BSA execs introduced the newfangled notion of NSP/Webelos 3 and the need to entertain the older boys with high adventure experiences. Marketing studies gone awry, eh? We certainly never saw the growth that was promised from that change. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Hard thing to do, startin' up a new troop in a new area that yeh aren't yet fully familiar with. Not sure I'd have advised it. Some notes (in no particular order): * Try to get one or two "local" experienced leaders aboard. Folks who know the area better than you do; also so that yeh introduce some new blood and new ways of thinkin' instead of just becoming a private club of expatriots from your former environs. * Find an "experienced" troop in your area that you like. Take their leadership out to dinner, and pick their brains. Great camping spots, ideas, info on local district, areas they feel where boys are under-recruited, etc. Ask 'em to help you out to get going, maybe do a joint campout, maybe help train your committee people in "how things really work". * For da first year of a new troop, yeh have to generate a calendar without the usual youth involvement. Yeh have to have something to "sell" recruits. Get your kids workin' on it. * After yeh get some more adults engaged, take the time to have 'em all sit down around a table or campfire somewhere and talk about goals/values/vision. Listen. Share. Listen some more. Yeh have to get your startup core really aligned and in agreement on the vision for the unit, along with the COR and IH. Especially the COR and IH! Make sure the CO has some "skin" in the game, eh? They should help pay for startup. * Have some notion of how yeh want to operate as yeh get going... structure for patrols, how handle fundraising and accounts, car camping or multi-sport lightweight camping, etc. But don't over-specify this stuff. Yeh want enough of an outline to get yeh running, but leave enough undefined so that people can make it "theirs" as they help yeh build the program. * Try not to start up at the bare minimum of 5 scouts, eh? 10-12 boys committed with committed parents is where yeh want to try to get to in a hurry. * Get with your DE and identify cub packs that have been under-recruited in the past, and go meet with their leadership (especially CM and the webelos den leaders). Start defining your recruiting, both short and long term, right from the start. Good luck with it! Beavah

I'm not sure there's evidence to suggest that he's an "enemy"; certainly not that he wants to see the U.S. destroyed. He's a leftist that might dislike our sole superpower status and who believes we should be held accountable or "checked" in some way. Or the fellow just doesn't believe in governments or big businesses keeping secrets. Even so, just because someone is an enemy doesn't mean they are a terrorist. For da many years of the cold war the former Soviet Union was an enemy. We were engaged in ideological conflict with them in areas around the world. But they were not terrorists, at least not on the international stage (domestically, it's arguable...). Despite our enmity, we negotiated treaties with them and by and large they lived up to their treaty obligations. They (and we) financed revolutionaries and dictators around the world, but those were revolutions and dictatorships, not terrorism. They (and we) engaged in wars ... them in Afghanistan, us in Korea and Vietnam, but just because we engaged in wars does not make us terrorists (though we all would agree that wars do come with pain and some atrocity). Da IRA in Northern Ireland didn't want to see Great Britain destroyed, yet they were terrorists, eh? They deliberately targeted innocent civilians for indiscriminate mass murder. It's important not to inflate the nature of the offense just because yeh happen to be mad at someone. That way lies monsters. Because if yeh allow it to happen to others, the government can do it to you. Refuse to submit to a pat-down and mouth off at the obnoxious TSA official? Terrorist! Protest too vociferously at an anti-abortion rally? Terrorist! Not every bad behavior or lapse of judgment makes yeh equal to Osama bin Laden. Or even to Nikita Kruschev. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)