Beavah

Merlyn, I have no interest in having an argument with you. It's a bit like debating chores with a child, eh? Leads to much emotion and not much accomplished. Yeh need to take some classes and build up some experience, not expect others to explain complex disciplines in a few lines for yeh. I opened up this thread on a public forum so that others who are interested in da topic can discuss it. That's what forums are for, eh? Group discussion, not private argument. Alternately it might give yeh a spot where yeh can vent or make ad hominem attacks in peace without disturbing other discussions. B

Ah, Gern, I like yeh just fine. Same with NJ. Agree with yeh on some things, disagree with yeh on others. Never met your pet rock, though . Yeh all come on back when yeh want to continue a discussion with folks who have a different perspective. Enjoy da echo chamber in the mean time! B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

This thread is provided so that anyone wanting to do da Merlyn thing can continue without hijacking the parent thread. Merlyn wrote, once again, that public school chartering of a BSA unit is a civil rights violation in his opinion. I don't think he read all da Martinez amicus briefs, but he also opined that da case was fundamentally different. I don't think the case was completely on point, but I reckon based on the briefs that it was close enough to strongly guide the lower courts. Have at it. B

Beavah, one government doesn't own the 'vast majority of schools'. Yah, I agree with yeh, packsaddle, though it's still government, eh? Having local counties and towns own almost all da grocery stores would still be a bit of a problem to my mind. Da thing is, in education what we're seeing is ever-increasing moves to state and federal control, not local. And if da rural folks down there don't want to support schools, I'm not sure government intervention is da answer, eh? Might be that the resultant poverty and lack of opportunity is the necessary consequence that leads to a change of heart. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Merlyn, vol_scouter is da medical professional and expert who actually read the studies instead of just Googling the CDC. He explained why you were wrong, not me. I simply pointed out that I agreed with him, because in most of your writing here you have a habit of latching onto isolated quotes that yeh find on the web without taking the time to actually understand the discipline. And it's necessary to understand da discipline in order to put an isolated quote in context. Whether it's law, medical research, or BSA policy and practice. Understanding takes time and effort beyond Google, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Ooops, sorry NJ. Missed yeh in da temporary Merlyn interruption. (edited to add: which seems not to be so temporary ). Please identify the "victim" that you claim. I'm not being obtuse, I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. For most of this thread, our LDS colleagues seem to be da victims of people's misperceptions or prejudices. Is that what yeh mean? And in my world, "blame the victim" is often an admonishment against zealous defense attorneys in rape cases, eh? But I fail to see anything resembling rape in this context. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Glad to see removing 10,000 public school charters still galls you, though. Doesn't gall me in da least, Merlyn, as I've said before. It didn't affect the practice of scouting much at all. Just created a temporary paperwork shuffle. What it did do was greatly reduce the likelihood that the BSA will change its leadership expectations, by greatly reducing the voice and voting power of the dissenters. So as a strategy for getting da BSA to change its practice, or to adopt "local option" it was inept. We've been round on da other stuff before, eh? You continue to overstate your case, no matter how many periods or ends of sentences you type out. SCOTUS, after all, just came within one vote of requiring public schools to accommodate and sponsor religious groups on an equal basis, so da notion that optionally doing so is illicit is quite a stretch. Beavah

The government doesn't own a school "here and there", eh? It owns and runs da vast majority of schools, and has a virtual monopoly in many rural areas. No different than the government owning the vast majority of grocery stores, and having a virtual monopoly in rural areas. The presence of a few very expensive boutique private grocers, some religious co-op grocers, and a handful of folks who still grow their own food at home doesn't mean that such a setup is not essentially a socialist one. In da language of socialized states, it's always portrayed as a government "service" to provide groceries. Common infrastructure (ex. roads and bridges), and pooled risk management (ex. police, fire, etc.) are a bit different, eh? Or at least much farther up da continuum than owning and running the vast majority of the places that indoctrinate the next generation of citizens. Beavah

Yeh lost me, NJCubScouter. What "victim" are yeh talking about? Victims are people who have been harmed by a criminal act. We're just talkin' about leadership rules in a childrens' program. This reminds me of condo or neighborhood association disputes, eh? There's always someone who wants to turn their front yard into a child care facility or paint their house camouflage. They claim that it's their property, why should anyone else care? But in fact, what they do does affect the perception of the neighborhood and da value of other people's property. No different here. So if yeh don't like da few rules of the neighborhood association, yeh can encourage like minded folks to buy into the neighborhood and change the rules, or yeh can buy or build a house somewhere else. Of course none of that means that some association rules aren't a bit over the top, eh? . Or that a few homeowners don't push the envelope. But that's just da nature of having neighbors, ain't it? And having neighbors is often more attractive for other reasons than goin' it alone. Beavah

Nah, because they started with an assumption based on their definition of mental illness. I can't speak to whether homosexuality is a mental illness, eh? But if da psychiatric community feels research shows that it isn't, I'll go along. It's interesting to me that they also find it associated with a much higher rate of mental illness, but then that can be due to anything from collateral genetic effects to lack of social acceptance, perhaps. But da argument is not about mental illness, eh? It's about public policy. And I don't think an honest psychiatrist would claim to have special research insight into public policy. Just like everybody else, all they're doing is lobbying for da personal viewpoint of a majority of their active members (if that... often da way position statements are drafted causes 'em to be more strident than the real opinion of da average member of any organization). Perhaps a few sociologists would have a thought to consider, but yeh can't easily conduct experiments on societies, eh? So our sociologists are always no better than our economists . Given that we're hard pressed to find many stable, successful societies in da history of the world that didn't put some form of taboo on homosexual behavior, I'm not sure an uncontrolled experiment on our society in a way contrary to da ethical beliefs of a substantial portion of our citizenry is a sound public policy choice. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Or perhaps it is in reaction to the Catholic and LDS churches pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns to restrict the rights of gays. Prop 8 comes to mind. Yah, normal political dialog, eh? Da money is donated by Catholic and LDS individuals who are expressing their views. Just as conservative episcopalians and Methodists and Muslims and baptists and some agnostics and atheists and traditional immigrant communities and just plain blue collar folks share da view and contribute to lobbying for da political position. No point in unfairly singling out da LDS. But let's not use too much spin language, eh? Government-recognized marriage is not a "right.". It's a grant of special tax, inheritance, and financial partnership status designed to encourage cohesive family units. Beavah

Yah, vol has da right understanding of how medical research and statistics are done, eh? It is his field, after all. Merlyn is again quoting sources that he doesn't fully understand. There's comfort in that kind of fundamentalist notion that all da information is in the text, but that's only true for one Text, if any . Thanks to DanKroh for all da APA cites, eh? They show pretty clearly that there wasn't any scientific basis, just da normal actions of a political lobby with a viewpoint. I have no problem with that, eh? That's just democracy. People with political viewpoints put out policy statements all da time. Yeh just have to be careful to be mentally awake and run all such things through a fine filter. Beavah

Yah, I've always been a bit disappointed in da prejudice shown by the gay rights movement against religions like the Mormons and Catholics. Yeh see that in a lot of tracts, even in stuff by da UUA who are usually better than that. I think they're just big targets because of their institutional/hierarchical structure. Fact is what JoeBob points out, eh? This isn't an LDS issue, or a Catholic issue. It's the moral and ethical position of a clear majority of our chartering partners and therefore of our elected board members. It's also the quiet opinion of da majority of our parents and donors. Blaming LDS is just nonsense. They're an important partner, but not da only one. There's no gorilla in da BSA, or perhaps there's a herd of gorillas (what do yeh call a herd of gorillas anyways?). If yeh want to change the position of the BSA on something, yeh need to participate in the BSA. That's why I always felt the hacks who insisted on pulling public school charters were some of da worst policy strategists I'd ever met. A bit like da Sunnis in Iraq boycotting elections and then being mad when the other folks got all da seats at the table. Beavah

Yah, email is just text, eh? It doesn't convey any "tone.". The "tone" that we read is always somethin' we add from inside our own head. So when we agree with someone, or have in da past, we perceive a positive "tone". And vice versa. Trick is just to remember that almost all of us here are scouters and scouting supporters who love kids and do our best to help 'em grow through scouting. That's da only tone I read anywhere in this thread. Back on topic, I agree with mikeb. I don't think yeh can rely on asking questions to determine a lad's readiness for a backcountry adventure trek, eh? Any more than you can ask questions to determine readiness for a water sports activity. Yeh have to actually see the performance, do the swim check. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

What do your kids think? Most venture patrol lads see this sort of trek as the result of years of their sweat equity, eh? That's not something to take lightly. Yah, I've seen and heard of LOTS of high adventure trips wrecked by having one youth or adult participant who really wasn't ready for that sort of thing who was allowed to participate by some "kind hearted soul". There's nothing like trying to console a kid for the loss of his father to a heart attack on the trail, or to trying to save da reputation of a youth who "ruined the big trip for everyone" to disabuse yeh of the kind hearted nonsense. Every year it seems we kill at least one boy in da western states who is a "guest" of some unit on an adventure trek, but because he didn't know the adults and troop well misbehaves, or doesn't pay attention, or... Adventurous trips in remote areas are marvelous learning experiences. They're the right "next step" for boys who have learned all they can from weekend, local, and front-country outings. They're not da place to take beginners, eh? Unless yeh want to run it as an adult-led guided beginners trip with a lot of outfitter support, in which case it won't be any fun or lead to any growth for da rest of the boys. Age has nothing to do with it, either. So I'd say yeh exercise extreme skepticism. Almost all of da times I've seen this done people have not been happy with the outcome in one way or another. There are all kinds of professional guide outfits that cater to kids like this. They just cost a lot more. That's because yeh need a lot more resources and experience to take unknown and inexperienced teens into da backcountry safely than we have in a volunteer program. Now it could be the lad completed Outward Bound two years ago and did a NOLS semester this summer and is willing to camp every outing with da troop to get to know and work with the youth and adults and learn your systems and expectations. In that case, no worries! There are always exceptions, eh? But doin' this should not be da rule. As to da rest, I'd be careful about letting lads "cherry pick" outings like this without being fully engaged with the rest of da program. Once yeh set that expectation, it's a hard thing to un-do. Yeh will get more and more of your boys who only want to come on "da fun stuff" while avoiding the commitment required to actually succeed in teaching character. And then parents who only want to pay or fundraise for what their boy does, etc. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, but Calico, da TLT syllabus IS an official publication of the BSA. Complete with job descriptions (some of which don't match those other sources you mention ). Jblake's approach is more along da lines I like to encourage. The positions you choose to use in your troop should reflect what amounts to real leadership in your troop. Yeh might drop some of da BSA ones, add some others, modify some others. I don't think all those troops who had webmaster positions long before the BSA adopted the position were really doing an awful thing, eh? In fact, as often as not, the BSA program materials follow the lead of those doing good work in the field. But I don't think we're ever goin' to see contracts, eh? . Some things are just not strong ideas, even if they're temporarily helpful to a troop here or there. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Calico, do yeh really feel that da sample POR job descriptions in theTLT materials are meant to be inviolable? They're so perfect that they will work for everybody from a small army base troop in Germany to an LDS troop in Idaho to a suburban mega-troop in Texas to an urban Scoutreach unit in Cleveland? That doesn't make any sense to me. It's not consistent with da TLT materials where they are presented as samples. And it's not consistent with da real world. Organizational leaders in most organizations have locally developed job descriptions, and usually are involved in the development of their own job description and "contract.". What you're describing wouldn't even be good management theory . Once again, I just think there's a happy middle, eh? One where we recongnize da program is enhanced by the local inventiveness and customization by youth and adult leaders, but one which also challenges da local assumptions and practices by looking to other outside sources of information from online forums to roundtables to other agencies like LNT.org or ARC or da BSA guidebooks. Beavah

As a Commissioner I needed to remind the SM that hard metrics are never a good idea, and there is no place for them. Yah, even though I'm not very fond of da contract stuff, I'm also not very fond of this notion. I'm wondering where it comes from, since nowhere in da program materials is there an admonishment against "hard metrics" or clear expectations. In fact, we teach SMART goals, eh? Including goals that have "hard" measurements and quality unit metrics that are similar. Da only odd thing in the program literature is the no-hard-percentage for being considered "active", but that doesn't apply to PORs (and, as something coming out of a small subgroup is not as "strong" a program recommendation as some of da other things... It's more a statement of how da advancement folks will handle appeals). Nobody is suggesting that adults should be brain dead and not take into account exceptional circumstances. At da same time, if mom has cancer and a lad needs to be at home, the honorable thing to do and da proper lesson is to resign his POR to take care of his family. So my dislike of these pseudo-contracts is their overt top-down adult-run nature and character, and da fact that they're just a disagreeable and un-fun way of approaching outdoor leadership. Communicating and mentoring responsibility and high expectations, though, is a good thing to my mind. Including "hard" expectations or guidelines. As a commish, I certainly wouldn't be as comfortable as ctbailey in telling folks such an approach isn't acceptable. Particularly for some units that are trying to establish a culture of responsibility that isn't yet fully in place, those kinds of rules or guidelines are often helpful. Same might be true of da "contracts" stuff. If yeh feel yeh have to use such a tool, it should be temporary, eh? Just a step on da road to developing expectations that the lads internalize and become part of da troop culture that they expect of each other without such a silly and boring adult crutch. Beavah Beavah

Whether something is a scout outing is a question of fact, eh? It gets decided by presenting evidence to a jury. Not by an insurance contract. Not by a BSA document. By humans who weigh all da relevant evidence and testimony and make a decision. Beavah

Yah, I'm just curious how all you job-description-and-signatures folks feel about being youth led or youth run, eh? Just because I reckon if we're honest no youth SPL or ASPL would ever suggest, voluntarily implement, or maintain such a system. Also seems like yeh want da kids just to slot in to your structure and be managers. I suppose dat's sort of real world, eh? Leastways for mediocre companies and government jobs. But not much fun and not a great learning environment. I always prefer to see units where boys are really leading, eh? Again, nothing "wrong" with this sort of adult led stuff, but it's not great either. Beavah

Yah, I sorta like KC's conversations, eh? I don't think contracts are completely evil. They're an attempt at communication, and all attempts at communication have some merit. I just like conversations a lot better. In da legal world, there are all kinds of things that make a contract valid. These adult-to-kid behavior contracts never seem to meet any of 'em. So they're really bad instruction in contract law . Like adults who rely on lots of policies or "authority" with kids, they're just a poor way to go. Better are explanations and friendships. So like da others, I'd challenge our contractors to "think different". Not because they are or aren't in da BSA literature, and not because I think you're terrible leaders or any of that stuff. Just because I think you'll find other ways of doin' things that are just a lot more effective and more fun. Beavah

"If you don't have a beaver leading, the rest of the critters just wander around aimlessly" Yah, ain't that da truth. End of a great summer, lots of time and adventures in da field, 100th Anniversary. More things draw us together than pull us apart, especially our love of kids, the outdoors, and Scouting. Let's hear from everybody loudly and with gusto, if not with tune. I used to be a Beavah and a good ol' Beaver too, Now I'm finished Beavering I don't know what to do. I'm growing old and feeble And I can Beaver no more So I'm going to work my ticket if I can... Back to Gilwell, Happy Land! I'm going to work my ticket if I can. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I did ask the person I felt was the most experienced local Scout leader/camper in our Council office Since when are there ever experienced leaders or campers working in da council office . That's only half a joke, eh? Better off looking for da volunteers who are working with kids or da local outfitters. B

But what about that 1 in 1,000 kid who is mature enough and intellectually able to understand that Law MB? Same as a camp that sets an age for Shotgun Shooting MB and yeh have a lad who is big for his age and who has spent a few years shooting at his family's trap and skeet range. Either yeh make an exception in that case if yeh have the room to accommodate him, or yeh don't make an exception and he gets the same opportunity as all da other scouts to take the MB when he reaches the appropriate age. Both answers are acceptable. Most of us would prefer da first approach, but there's nothing wrong with da second. I also don't think there's anything at all wrong with setting camp or troop policies, eh? Policies are good things; they help yeh treat all comers fairly rather than playing favorites or just responding to da squeaky wheel, they help ensure good communication and understanding, they help establish norms so that things run smoothly for da general cases. Then, when appropriate, yeh make exceptions to the policy if an exception is warranted. Personally, I think it's much healthier to have local policies than national ones, eh? National one-size-fits-all policies are particularly problematic. Yeh have to make a lot of local exceptions to keep 'em functional. Local control is a better principle, especially because then it's clear that the folks who made the policy have the power to make exceptions. Beavah

Yah, 50% chance of weather on an outlook forecast strikes me as being minimal risk, eh? Yeh just can't rely at all on thunderstorm forecasts more than 6 hours out, and on weather in general more than 24 hours out. In many parts of da country, what you're talking about wouldn't be considered in the least as a reason to cancel. I think this is like any judgment call, eh? You need to go ask somebody in your area who has the experience with weather and camping to make the judgment, not take it on yourself because yeh did a weak online training module. Same as with whether a river is too high to go paddling or avalanche conditions are too high to go snowshoeing or whether a rock climbing location is appropriate for kids. Go ask someone who really understands da weather in your area and family camping. Beavah