Beavah

Yah, none of those screening programs is worth a darn, IMHO. If it bothers yeh, just don't click on any of the advertisements and you'll be fine. Or use a better browser than Microsoft's. Like all banner ads, da ones here are redirects and scouter Terry doesn't have any direct control over 'em . It's possible one has expired. More likely Norton just didn't update their database after Ask.com changed da IP address of some of their servers. B

Beav - How can you look for complex, specific solutions when you don't hesitate to generalize and over-simplify the problem? You're mixin' things up, dScouter. Yeh can evaluate the effectiveness of a public policy or general practice. I'd argue that it's necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of a public policy or general practice. That is generalizing and over-simplifying at some level, eh? But it's still both valid and important. Yah, real solutions to individual cases may at times be complex and idiosyncratic. I'm fine with making exceptions to da rule here and there when appropriate. That's not part of medical research practice, though, eh? In medical research, yeh average da outcomes. A few people cured and a few people killed means no drug approval. First, on average, do no harm. That's the point I was makin' with packsaddle, eh? A few cases of success is not sufficient to make a claim that a general practice is valid. Any faith healer or quack can point to a few cases of success. Evaluation of a policy or practice must be broader, and take into account costs and negative outcomes, both short and long term. Beavah

Beavah - when you started this thread you reckoned you'd learn something - what do you think thus far? I reckon I'm more depressed about da situation than I was. Lisabob, I think it's possible to evaluate da current practice as unsuccessful or harmful without having an alternative in mind. Just means yeh should begin by stopping da current practice. I also don't think your question is informative, eh? A bit like asking "How should you address behavioral problems in a troop?", only broader. What behavioral problems? For which child and family? This old furry fellow isn't such a fool as to think that he can make a general statement about how to respond to all kids with behavioral problems, or come up with a "just follow the DSM IV" set of rules that will work for everyone after one office evaluation. Nor is an exhaustive list of all of the possible ways of addressing behavioral problems particularly helpful. I reckon this thread is mostly just positing "first, do no harm". But yeh seem to have a notion yourself, so don't be coy. What do you think is the set of appropriate ways to address a behavioral problem, without expecting (too) much of parents, kids, professionals, society, or whatnot? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

First, since when is it necessary for a boy to be ready for a POR? I don't believe there is such thing as being ready for a POR, nor should there be. Nah, I gotta disagree with this. I get Gary_Miller's point, that the boys grow into and through holding a position. But I think that's only true if the position is a reasonable stretch for the lad. There are all kinds of positions and all kinds of boys where the "stretch" is too great for a boy to reasonably tackle. A first year scout being SPL of a large, well established troop. A young ADHD lad being Quartermaster. A tenderfoot who hasn't ever planned a weekend's worth of meals as Patrol Leader. The gruff, insecure fellow with little patience being Troop Guide. Appointing a boy to a position that he doesn't have the skill for is just setting a boy up for failure. It's like appointing a non-swimmer as lifeguard - it's not good for either the boy or those who are relying on him. Naturally, most of da time the boys recognize this, and don't elect/appoint such a lad. When that happens, I don't think it's the SM's role to try to "find the boy a position" so that he can advance on a schedule. I think it's the SM's role to help the boy become a good team member and follower, to improve his skills and his disposition, to be more active - so that his peers will eventually recognize him as being ready to be trusted with a position of responsibility. Beavah

Yah, I'm sorta with dScouter. Never attribute to wickedness what can be explained by incompetence. I don't think most physicians are engaged in bribery or fraud. I think they're engaged in poor medical practice, in much da way dScouter describes. An office visit and a throat culture are sufficient to diagnose strep throat and prescribe antibiotics. An office visit and a 15 minute conversation are not sufficient to diagnose, prescribe, and properly medicate with psychotropics. Despite whatever we fictionalize as "the dominant norms of 21st century society" or try to excuse by social pressure or societal need for quick fixes (which I think is mostly bunk), I think we can expect professionals to act professionally. And da overprescription of psych meds to youth, in line with da over diagnosis of mental health conditions treated by both counseling and drugs, is not an acceptable professional standard of care. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Each year, the number of scouts (aged 13-17) on antidepressants, ADD/ADHD meds, mood stabilizers, etc, has increased significantly. In recent years, the number of scouts on these meds have grown to a point that its making medication distribution a logistical problem in relation to our camp's program. Yah, say what yeh want about us ignorant scouter-types, but it's hard to look at a statistic like that and conclude that it's anything other than medical quackery. This is da reason it's important to have recourse to malpractice lawsuits in medicine, despite their occasional abuse by grieving families. B

Yah, I don't know where da 5 days comes from. This was a one-day event and they were out before dark. When they first contacted the park service through the HAM relay because of the sick boy, park service told 'em to sit tight and wait for the helicopter rather than continue the walkout. Seems part of da problem was trail erosion and removal of trail signage in the area making the downclimb more of a problem than expected. The helicopter evac seems like overkill, but it's much easier to extract someone from up on a mesa than down in a drainage somewhere, so I can see why NPS would prefer they wait rather than risk more complication. Beavah

SCOUTING +: More diversity, by far. I don't get da "like minded folks" thing. In sports you're going to quickly be segregated onto a team with people of the same interest and very similar levels of ability. In Scouting, you're going to be in a patrol with kids with very different interests and levels of ability. SCOUTING +: Teaches life long pursuits. Yeh can hike until yeh drop. Most kids won't play competitive sports past high school, especially team sports that require organization like football or baseball. SCOUTING +: Learn a much broader range of skills that can translate into future careers or hobbies. Learn how to combine and use knowledge from different areas, work with groups of people, organize, budget, evaluate. Make better contacts with community. SCOUTING +: Safety is much, much, much better than almost all youth sports programs. SCOUTING +: Leastways around here, way cheaper than most of da youth sports programs. Ever seen what hockey costs for one season in da northern states? SCOUTING +: Not so many screaming, misbehaving adults on da sidelines. Less competitive nature of activities doesn't draw out da same negative behaviors as for sports. SCOUTING +: Somewhat better or more overt teaching of values, though scouters themselves aren't always da best examples. SCOUTING +: Much better opportunities to learn judgment and leadership, and in more complex, challenging environments. NEUTRAL: Scoutin' offers year-round opportunities. Makes for more growth, deeper friendships. Also makes for more of a commitment. NEUTRAL: Competitive vs. Collaborative. Scouting is definitely more the latter. Probably more useful for a lad in the long run, but there's merit to competition, too. SPORTS+: Develop better fitness. Scouting just can't do this in one meeting a week. SPORTS+: Learn one thing (how to play goalie, etc.) really well. Parents see faster "progress" because of more time spent on just one thing. SPORTS+: Yeh have professional coaches (paid by school or paid by association), so yeh have coaches who have more time to give and possibly have a longer-term commitment to the program. Practices are more frequent, coach might be more experienced. SPORTS+: Much better marketing and youth "sex appeal", especially in regional sports. Perceived as "cooler" both by youth and younger adults. SPORTS+: Much easier for parents to live vicariously through their kid, cheer for him, be part of his victories and defeats. Scoutin' is largely invisible unless yeh choose to be an ASM, and even then yeh can't cheer and shout most of da time. SPORTS+: Less time commitment expected of da parents, often. More of a regular baby-sitting service where yeh aren't expected to do too much more than pay or fundraise. Event only takes half of a Saturday, not da whole weekend.

Yah, Gunny, thanks for that. I tried to google "you earn iggy" and all I got were a bunch of ugly pictures of a now very old Iggy Pop. B

A Scout Salute to the fine Scouter who has gone home to he Great Scoutmaster of all scouts. A second salute to you as the fine scouter who will help carry on his work with kids. Welcome to da forums, and to a wonderful adventure. Beavah

Most likely explanation is that a kid got sick and the unit stayed with the sick kid, working their way out slowly and then opting to signal for assistance. Not da best example of "be prepared" but not necessarily a sign of bad judgment. Sports, on da other hand, cripple so many kids each year that it isn't even newsworthy. Beavah

Da point of da consequences it that it takes more work and effort to fix/replace things than it does to keep track of 'em, not necessarily that the lad should be miserable on a trip. Work and effort to buy new poles, and/or work, effort, and some creative wit to rig the tent without poles, or work and effort to ride a bike to da outdoor shop, shell out for some seam sealer, and take the time to carefully seam-seal the old tent. All of 'em have the advantage of teaching a whole variety of skills alongside keeping track of gear, eh? Like how to care for old gear and extend its life, how to improvise with da materials you have, how to budget for unexpected expenses. It's not about punishing the lad, eh? That's not scouting. It's about da natural consequences. Though gettin' wet is da natural consequence if the lad chooses "none of the above" Don't take away da natural consequences, but also don't make the mistake of failing to support your son as he works and struggles to meet da challenge. It's that balance where good scouting and good parenting happen. There is more joy in a parent's heart for one lad who screws up and makes good than for 99 who don't screw up. Or somethin' like that. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Not what Blanc was saying, eh? Just that we hold a Scoutmaster or other scouter to a higher standard, and would be more "frosted" by someone in such a position who didn't "get" the program. Are yeh goin' to take the lad out for a day this weekend to try some tracking? Only a short 75 mile drive. That's da sort of support where parents matter the most to the boys, eh? Support 'em in pursuing their challenges and dreams, and support da program. Beavah

All of the medications have double-blind trials. A drug won't get approved for prescriptions if it's not. Well, all of da medications have double-blind trials for a diagnostic group identified by skilled researchers. In an ideal world where da funding didn't subtly or overtly bias anything. Problem is, close as I can tell as an outsider, that these things are frequently prescribed off-label, in combinations, doses, and to patients not considered in da original drug trials. I don't know if it's still the case, but for years we were seeing kids on psych drugs at camps where when yeh looked up the drug in da PDR you got something like "this drug has never been tested for use in treatment of conditions for those under 18 years of age". It's much harder for drug companies to comply with da informed consent rules for younger patients, so they don't bother. So yah, I'm OK with lithium for well-diagnosed adult schizophrenics, eh? I'm not as sanguine about "legal speed" or da drug cocktails for 12-year-olds without much better studies of short and long-term effects. And I'm not sure why anybody would be, eh? Seems like we're running a whole mess of uncontrolled experiments on kids, and the only data we're really collecting is how da kid behaves in an office during a visit every now and then. And da counseling for kids is an order of magnitude worse. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Holy smoke! Quite a resurrection of an old thread. ScoutMythBuster, I reckon you are creating some really bad Myths of your own, eh? To quote from the Scoutmaster's and SPL's Handbooks: Each troop sets its own age, rank, and other qualification standards for its senior patrol leader (and, by extension, for other positions of responsibility as well). So it's perfectly kosher for a Scoutmaster to put a rank requirement or an age requirement on a position of responsibility according to da program materials. Now, a Scoutmaster or a troop Committee may decide it doesn't like that notion, that it's not in keeping with what their Chartered Organization wants to teach youth, and open up SPL and other PORs to all comers. So even though da national program materials don't give an option for a troop not to set such requirements in some way, a troop may still choose not to. It's a youth program. CO's use da materials to run their youth outreach, eh? The unit is not owned nor operated by da BSA, the BSA is not liable for its supervision, and therefore does not have a say in exactly how da program materials are utilized. All they ask is that when certain things are utilized - the award system, the uniform, the name "Scouting" - that they be in compliance. But a unit can choose not to use all of the POR's listed in the books, can choose not to use advancement at all, can choose not to admit boys over age 14, you name it. That's Scouting. If yeh really feel that COs and units should all use the BSA materials verbatim and without deviation, then yeh need to find yourself another organization, eh? That's not da way the BSA works. Honestly, I'm not sure there's any youth organization yeh can point to like that, so yeh might have to start your own . Rest assured, with that approach da organization will be a lot smaller than the BSA. In the mean time, your role as a district volunteer is to support all those different units, with different approaches, eh? Not to go about like a bull in a China shop tellin' everybody they're wrong, and only your way is kosher. That will get yeh removed as a district volunteer faster than you can say Jimmeny Cricket. So take a deep breath and step away from da cliff. In da grand scheme of things, whether a unit leader does or doesn't put a rank requirement on the Den Chief position is a small thing. Now, as I said in da other thread, I do agree with yeh that in most cases the district should not be imposing other requirements beyond those of the unit. That's not their place. To be fair, training can be limited if there's limited space, just as a summer camp can put an age or rank requirement on some MB classes if there's limited space. But that should be done up front, eh? I think we'd all agree with yeh that hauling the kids out of the class and yelling at 'em is not the way to handle an oversubscribed class. Beavah

Huh? In acco's example, da SM was right. He recognized the problem, knew the parent, and responded in a way that the parent could potentially understand and appreciate. Yah, he could have said "the rule is it's my call as Scoutmaster and I say no." But that's not as kind as giving an explanation for why he is saying no... that her son will be better prepared for the role if he focuses his first year on being a Boy Scout and earning First Class, so that he is fully prepared to help support a den. There was no deception. There was explanation. How a parent chooses to hear "no" sometimes is beyond our control. Where I agree with yeh is that a district should not tell a scoutmaster that he or she can't use an older Tenderfoot scout as a Den Chief. That's SM's discretion. But in service to the SM and unit, a district should never, ever tell a parent that the SM is "wrong" and must use such a boy if the CM or Den Leader requests. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

No need to shout, ScoutMythBuster (typing in all caps is considered shouting in email/forum communications ). I think yeh need to take a step back for a minute, and ask yourself what your role is as a district volunteer. I think you'll agree that da role of all district volunteers is service to the units in the district, individually and collectively. We district, council, and national volunteers don't work for da professional staff, and the unit volunteers definitely don't work for us. It's not our business to say what a scoutmaster should or should not do when dealing with a parent, and taking that approach isn't likely to get yeh anywhere useful. We give advice when asked, we give support when needed, we give options to consider, we provide materials and basic training in how to use 'em. The SM can set da rules for his or her troop in this regard. So it's perfectly fine to say that a Den Chief must be First Class, or an SPL must be 14 years old. Look it up, it's right there in the SM handbook. Units can set eligibility requirements for PORs. Now, what's not OK is if someone at the district or council level tells all the troops that their Den Chief must be First Class. Remember, our role at da district or council is service, not imposing extra burdens. Some young troop might need or want younger scouts to serve as den chiefs. Some SMs may have a great way of making it work in their unit. It's OK if a UC or trainer is asked for their opinion to suggest First Class as a good threshold, but not to claim it's a requirement for all units. Dat's true for most questions that come up to the district or council level, eh? They are best answered by considering "how can I best support this fellow volunteer and his or her unit?" Beavah

IF you could identify an underlying mechanism that explained the difference. And yet nearly every text begins with da statement "Precisely how SSRIs affect depression isn't clear." Da issue isn't that I'm not proposing a scientific hypothesis, it's that as close as I can tell the psych community isn't.

I too have seen some very good success cases and those alone are sufficient to convince me that it is possible to alter brain chemistry in a way that is beneficial to the patient. Yah, but that's not good science, eh? It's faith healing. Yeh point to the couple cases that seemed like they worked. Good science looks at da cure rate vs. the worse-outcomes rate vs. what would happen if yeh just continued with ordinary measures. What kind of science is "counseling works, yeh just have to find the right counselor?" BG

Yah, RANBOW, I hope you're not talkin' about me . I think I've made it clear by my back-and-forth bit that I consider this a campfire conversation among friends. Da criticism is meant in that friendly way, eh? And I'd take comments like Protestants having wind vanes on the top of their church because our theology just "blows around with the prevailing wind" in the same light . Even OGE doesn't think I'm the devil anymore, but it took him a while to come 'round. Of course, da Jesuit canon lawyer I do lunch with about once a month still has hope for me, but as I understand it half da curia think the Jesuits are heretics. I think yeh also see a real but more pointed criticism from BadenP, but it's also one worth thinkin' about and not dismissing just because it's pointed. I have every reason to believe that he's working with disaffected priests, and certainly he expresses da viewpoint of a fallen-away Catholic. We protestant fellows tend to not get as angst-ridden when we change churches as you "one, holy, catholic, apostolic" types . So from my perspective his argument was unfair, but I reckon from a practicing Catholic's perspective it's worth thinkin' about why his experience with da church had such a negative effect on him. Same as with the LDS threads, eh? I think a lot of da criticism was unfair. At the same time, I'm glad some folks in that community are reflecting on it a bit, and recognizing where they might have work to do. In that way, campfire chats and criticism are a good thing, eh? Not so much because of da critic, but because the listener chooses to do the right thing and take the criticism in the best, most productive way. Beavah

I have also seen the Church's recent forays into governmental issues, and those do concern me. Yah, just curious, sherm. What forays into governmental issues are yeh speaking of, particularly?

Nah, ScoutMythBuster, you're not quite understanding things right. The BSA is not like the national government of scouting, eh? And even our national government properly yields to local government on many things. We in da BSA provide program materials for a kids' program. Stuff for COs to use to help 'em do their thing with kids. Yah, sure, we have some interest in making sure that our awards stay slightly uniform and that our recognized symbols aren't abused. We'd like to suggest best practices to keep kids safe. But beyond that, there's all kinds of room for local adaptation. Heck, da BSA is re-writing and adapting things all the time, eh? It's not like we have a perfect grip on what works best. Many of the things you recognize as part of scouting now got started as local adaptations, from Venture Patrols to the OA. So I'd say stop focusing on rules and focus on kids. Yeh get much better results and will have much happier youth and volunteers. What's right for a winter campout for boys in Northern Wisconsin is going to be different from what's right for a winter campout for boys from south Florida who have never seen snow. What's an appropriate knife for a rural lad who has grown up with proper knife use is different than what's right for an urban youth where knives were always treated as concealed weapons and taboo. Those rules should be local. As to training being the key, I just have to laugh. In my experience, most myths and urban legends are passed on by trainers and at roundtables, eh? Usually by well-meaning folks who just aren't as confident or experienced, and who want to sound authoritative. Best way is to focus on kids. What makes sense for the kids and the resources you have? Sometimes it's a rank requirement for Den Chief or SPL, sometimes not. Sometimes an election is right, sometimes not. Sometimes fixed terms are right, sometimes not, and sometimes they're just different and both ways have merit. Nobody's goin' to come and put yeh in the stockade regardless, so yeh might as well do your best for the kids. And if what you're doing isn't working, whether it's by-the-book or a local adaptation, then do something different! Beavah

Yah, anyone willing to bet that if Engineer61 is this wrapped up about tent poles that the poor fellow is going to have an ulcer or a nervice breakdown when his kid becomes a teenager . B

Nah, Trevorum. Dat's what secretaries and interns are for, eh? I always try to find ones who are good at translatin' Beaverish . Of course, when spoken, da ladies all find it charming . Guess BadenP has taken his marbles and gone home, with some vague mention of "books.". Yah, and perhaps a misunderstanding of da definition of "diatribe." . I wonder if this means OGE is goin' to bless me in Latin for defending da papists against calumny, or sentence me to da nether regions for my critique of their quaint and slightly idolatrous worship practices? Beavah

What an odd view. At da time of Innocent III, the territorial bishops were mostly appointed by the king, eh? Far from being da dupes of the pope, the secular rulers were likely to be manipulators of da church and of papal politics, through appointments and seizures of property or territory. Innocent played da political game rather well and did his best to assert some independence and papal privilege. He even won a few rounds, eh? But he was a rare bird. Most of da popes were pushed hither and yon by da Emperor and da other secular rulers. As a group they were never very good at the game. Who financed da crusades? Which one? The first was mostly financed by da lesser nobles who took part, though Byzantium assisted. Da second and third were financed by the monarchs who participated. Yah, da church contributed to da Fourth a bit, mostly with pronouncements of loan deferrals. But they made a hash of it, eh, since that Crusade ran out of cash before it left da pier. It's a bit silly to confuse an ordinary war with genocide, but there's certainly no need to fault Innocent for the latter since that crusade never encountered a single Moor. . Of course like all such things at the time, secular or religious, the Crusades were in part financed by predation on da area the soldiery passed through. So if you're goin' to fault da popes, yeh mostly should fault them for being inept at governance and politics, not for being wicked. And Innocent III spent most of his time trying to mediate da various Christian-on-Christian political violence throughout Europe. Lateran IV did preach crusade, but then it was also da first council where a lot of secular representatives and their appointed territorial bishops held sway, eh? Like I said, complicated. Mostly just people and governments being their usual selves. But I see something in that history that I think you're missing. In da other parts of the world where Emperors and warlords held sway, that was it, eh? But in Europe, da emperors and warlords were always being challenged and checked by the Roman Church you revile. That's a powerful notion, eh? That government can be checked. That da king is not absolute. Before there were Constitutional checks and balances, there was Church/state checks and balances. And probably da reason Europe eventually developed da former is because da popes taught us the latter. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)