Jump to content

Beavah

Members
  • Posts

    8173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by Beavah

  1. All a percentage attendance requirement accomplishes is a Scout making sure he earns Eagle Scout before he leaves middle school then leaving a unit. Yah, except then yeh read posts by BrentAllen and others who do have really strong expectations of attendance, and you see how those expectations make for a strong unit of honorable and responsible young men. So perhaps, just maybe, attendance requirements can accomplish somethin' else. So who is most likely to benefit from this clarification? Yah, Calico is right that there are occasional adults who go so over-the-top with their own rules that they forget why we're here. But this definition isn't goin' to change 'em. If they have half a brain, they're just goin' to drop the lad from the charter. So if anything, this has a shot at makin' things worse in those rare cases. So who is really most likely to be affected by this clarification? The snowplow parent who wants to get an Eagle badge for their parental resume who can now rail against the SM that is just tryin' to teach their little darling how to be responsible and make choices. It's the same principle as a McDonalds franchisee being told they can't serve Whoppers. Nope. Legally and practically speakin', the relationship between the BSA and the Chartering Organization is very different from a franchising relationship like those used by McDonalds. Tryin' to use that as a comparison will lead you to the wrong conclusions most of the time. As it does in this case, because a CO certainly can serve whoppers, eh? It can contract with Campfire USA for services and run a Campfire trip whenever it doesn't care for the BSA's rules. It can run a BSA Venturing program with 100% overlap with a GSUSA Seniors troop or with their Pop Warner Football program. It can even open a McDonald's franchise . The BSA licenses program materials and provides resources for the CO to use at its discretion. Chartered Organizations are our customers, as in "the customer is always right." We don't dictate how they run their youth program. The BSA can say how it (the BSA) runs its advancement program, sure. But not how (or even if) the CO chooses to use it. Lots of Venturing units and a few scout troops choose not to use advancement/recognitions at all. All things in moderation and balance, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  2. Yah, it's interestin' how animated some folks get about wantin' to avoid havin' rules and procedures in place, and then at other times get animated about people who they feel aren't complying with rules and procedures. Yah, sure an IH of an organization with a strong hierarchy like a Catholic parish can play "trump" as Calico suggests, eh? But there are lots of organizations where the IH him/herself is elected... sometimes by some of da people on the unit committee! Yeh can't make generalizations about this stuff. To my mind, it's good practice to have bylaws and rules & regs. Done right, they provide a structure to the organization and its procedures, eliminate some confusion and disputes and problems, and help a group navigate other kinds of conflicts. But only if they're done well, and only if they're in place in advance. Yah, sure, it's possible for bylaws or regulations to be done poorly, eh? The BSA demonstrates that from time to time. Just look at the mess that poorly written bylaws made in Chicago. But just because troops sometimes use uniforms poorly doesn't mean we shouldn't have uniforms. Same with bylaws and regulations. For every example folks can think of where they feel havin' bylaws in place hurt, I'm sure I can think of an example where not having them in place hurt. So we can have a duel of anecdotes at 10 paces . Small units that draw from a homogeneous group of people with common vision/values will do just fine without bylaws and regulations. It'll work until it doesn't - when they get one or more members who don't share quite the same vision/values. That's when yeh want procedures to help guide yeh. Every thing needed to operate a Unit is available from the BSA. Yah, I'm not sure where folks get this particular notion, eh? Just isn't the case. Yeh won't find hardly a thing on committee governance, not a thing at all on finance or financial controls, absolutely nothing on how to handle removin' a youth for behavioral reasons (or anything else about dealin' with youth behavior for that matter). And COs don't often have that stuff in place or even have a system that matches up with da notion of a committee. If you're a hierarchical IH, odds are you appoint associates and deputies, and maybe advisory boards but not a committee to oversee something. Every unit out there has built up a whole mess of additional structure in order to make the unit go. Some do it in writin', some do it by more social instruction, but everybody's got stuff that isn't present anywhere in the BSA materials. Me personally, I think it's fine to be informal about it most of da time, but that has its downsides, eh? There's good reason to have things in writin'. Prevents the "CC is King" mentality which is just unhealthy for a unit, and provides guidance when things are goin' south and you need guidance the most. Beavah
  3. I'm just saying, you chess club,band geeks, and other students of that nature wouldn't make fun of the unifroms. Yah, I'm wonderin' if yeh ever actually talk to kids, eh? Or listen? Just did an EBOR last month with a lad who was a consummate band geek and on the chess club and da science olympics or somesuch. He reported that all of his non-scout friends in those organizations made fun of the uniform and the little-kiddie stuff it represented. These same kids were cool with him makin' Eagle, mind. But when asked what we could do better to attract some of his band and chess and science friends to scouting, his first response was "drop the stupid uniform." And for da record, his uniform was spit-and-polish, from one of the best-uniformed "uniform pride" troops in his district. Beavah
  4. Yah, Abel, I'm right there with yeh nodding my head and agreeing. Lots of lads are learnin' how to manage their time, eh? They can have big eyes or big hearts and want to do everything. Sign up for everything. Promise everything. Then reality hits, and they end up not fulfilling their responsibilities. What a wonderful gift that is to a lad, to learn that kind of thing before he's out on his own in college or a job or a family of his own. So what does a Scoutmaster do? He works with the boy, helps him to balance, helps him to make choices between things, helps him to resist pressure to do something he cares less about, helps him to see the value in doin' hard, often less fun, responsible jobs rather than just fun stuff. That might involve removin' him, but not always. But it shouldn't involve rewarding him until he actually has shown responsibility. Now I don't know about da SPLs and patrols in your neck of da woods, but I've found the boys tend to be pretty kind, eh? They give other boys second and third chances; they tend to be pretty slow to vote someone out of a job. And lads do deserve second chances to show they can be responsible, eh? So I don't find it strange that even though a lad was irresponsible in one position he'd be given a shot at another. Now, I agree with you completely about what responsibility and that requirement should mean, eh? Problem is, like da weird definition of "active" that started this thread, that program office in Irving interprets requirement 4 to mean "hold the title". If the lad held the title for any combination of those jobs for a combined total of 6 months, then he's met the requirement. It's up to the Scoutmaster to remove him before the six months are up (and presumably not give him a second chance) if the SM doesn't think the boy should advance. Yah, it's poppycock. Yah, most good units are just ignorin' this stuff and goin' on their way teaching real values. Where it comes up is with younger units or less experienced unit leaders who think they have to go along with this interpretation, or with helicopter snowplow parents who grab those "definitions" and use 'em to try to browbeat good volunteers into givin' them the badge they want. That's why I don't think these mealy-mouthed definitions do Scoutin' any service. And this recent one, while it tries to move in the right direction, is so poorly written that it creates even more confusion and problems. Da CSE really needs to do some housecleanin' in that office, IMHO. Some enterprisin' reporter somewhere is goin' to pick up on this stuff and run a feature that will be a major embarrassment to the organization. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  5. How about when Council decides that you knowingly violated set policies and guidelines therefore you were negligent and they are not going to have the liability insurance policy cover you for little Johnny's injuries. That's one of the sanctions that a Council can dole out. Yah, let's not start with this fiction again, eh? A scouter is trustworthy. We don't make stuff up just to try to win an argument. Beardad, you do have a point. In these things there is always some sense of give-and-take between what's written as a general rule for da country and what makes the most sense in a local area. Cub scouts also aren't supposed to canoe on rivers, eh? That's a good rule for lots of places where rivers have a lot of current and such. But in areas of the flat midwest, there are slow-movin' rivers that are quite a bit safer than havin' cubs out on the local lake, especially if it's windy. Units are supposed to file national tour permits for international trips, but councils along border areas with Canada will accept local tour permits for trips into Canada. So if your culture is what yeh say, then it will be straightforward and easy for you to get your council to OK a BB-gun activity for your unit and make someone available as rangemaster to assist. Just go ask 'em. Heck, there may be a Venturing crew that does hunting and can send a bunch of venturers to assist with your activity. I think yeh do want to be careful, though. Workin' with a group of young boys of different experience levels with bb guns and firearms is a lot different than workin' with one lad who has had a lot of experience. Boys who are out alone or with an adult stalkin' small game behave a lot differently then when they're with a bunch of their buddies horsin' around. To my mind, you are underestimatin' the safety issues in tryin' to run this sort of thing as a den activity. And I'm one of those fellows who grew up with firearms, shootin' rifles startin' age 7 or so! But that was always with dad and da uncles, not with a bunch of other 7 year olds. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)
  6. I can pretty much say that you are about the quality of the program and put advancement at the bottom of your list of things that mean squat. That is to say,your vision of scouting is about the trip, not the destination. My personal vision of Scoutin'? Nah, it's about the destination: buildin' young people of character and values. And the trip should be fun and inspirin' . Everything else is just tools. Advancement is a tool, and a valuable one if it's used well. Certainly not on my list of things that mean squat. Like any tool, yeh have to know how to use it and when. But if a scout does not do a single thing in his position, and he's given 2 other positions that he does nothing in...then to say he's met the requirements is absurd! Now see, there yeh go usin' your head and disagreeing with the "rules." I'd assume somebosy would say something to him about his duties, If he isn't doing anything at all, he's just there for his next patch and working the system. Oh, yah. Often the SM will say somethin' over and over, though a lot of SMs want to do that in person and if a lad is a frequent no-show, a month or more can go by before the conversation can happen. Sometimes in frustration the committee will put it in writing as a "requirement." There are still those lads (and parents) who are just there for the next patch and are working the system. Some lads have parents that never say "no", eh? Teachin' those boys that there are other caring adults in the world who will say "no" is an important part of their learning to be men. So we have to do it. Just that the stuff from Irving should be making the job of caring unit leaders easier, not harder. Beavah
  7. Yah, holysmoke ScoutFish! You're even more longwinded than Eamonn and me. We're goin' to lose our status. (BTW, this old Beavah still has more fur on top than Wilford Brimley ). One of da things yeh figure out slowly is that each person here comes with their own perspective/history/baggage/philosophy, eh? CalicoPenn has had some experience with numbskull adults gettin' picky and gettin' in the way of deserving lads. So when he hears a question, he views it through that lens. He sees those numbskulls in his head, and will reliably come down hard on the side of the boy. That's a good thing, and a good perspective to share. Me, as one of those commissioner fellas who've worked with a bunch of units and councils and COs and such, I tend to try to support the unit leaders and committees in doin' what's best in the face of parent pressure and kid behaviors and disputes and all the rest. So I tend to try to calm folks down when they're gettin' all hot and bothered and offer "the other side of the story." So if someone says "blue" I might agree, but if they start yelling "BLUE FOR EVERYONE!" I start suggestin' there's merits to red. BrentAllen's a fellow with strong, straightforward expectations and values. Jblake is an enthusiastic get-it-done, make-it-work fellow. Both of 'em are runnin' their units very successfully but very differently than da grandfatherly and orderly OGE would have. But if yeh put us all together, you get a pretty good cross-section of Scoutin'. That way yeh also have a pretty good chance of readin' something from someone that will help you do a better job for your kids. And don't let anything else be your focus, eh? As a unit volunteer, you work for your CO and you're there for the kids. Not for yourself. Not for us. Not for the BSA. We're all just here to provide service. ------ As to peer pressure and uniforms, I reckon you're just bein' a bit simplistic. In some cultures, like immigrant and liberal cultures in the U.S., uniforms are associated with bad things in the home country. There are some good parents who don't buy in. And there's some parents who don't buy in because of cost or perceived value. I've known lots of very good, upstanding young people (includin' most of da Eagle Scouts at EBORs over the years) who think the current uniform is a negative. Yeh can't foib it off on "bad kids" who smoke or do drugs. The "good kids" that we want in Scouting for the most part think it's dorky/gay/little-kid stuff by the time they're in middle school if not before. BSA recognizes this and there are some moves afoot to make some big changes to try to address it. Until then, we have to be honest. In only a small percentage of units where adults have worked very, very hard at it is the current uniform something lads are "proud" of. And even then, odds are they aren't proud enough of it to wear it to school. Beavah
  8. it does show that somebody is trying to make up for a failure to motivate a boy from within. Yah, FScouter, in da BSA we use the Advancement Method, eh? The entire Advancement Method is based on external motivation - motivating a lad from "without." External motivation helps lads learn and grow. That's why we use it. I know a lot of lads who love to play soccer, but their coaches still have attendance requirements, eh? Love of a thing doesn't always imply discipline or commitment in a boy. Yeh can love your family but still avoid chores unless there are rules, eh? We hope that eventually the habits will lead to a boy being motivated from within. Once a boy reaches that goal, advancement method is useless and can be dropped, like we drop it from Venturing. Internally motivated lads don't need external goalsettin' and rewards. Until then, we have requirements and advancement. That's the Scoutin' program. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  9. whether he decides to perform his duties as a junior leader for 6 months Yah, Abel, except that's not the requirement, eh? National's interpretation of serve actively in a position of responsibility is "hold office". There's nothing in there about "perform his duties." So he's active if he's registered. If he holds office for two months, then the SM removes him for doin' nothing, then he talks da SPL into appointing him bugler but he misses the next two monthly campouts and the SM removes him, then he whines and is made quartermaster with a strict set of expectations but no-shows again and the SM removes him... he has now fulfilled the requirements. He's held office for a total of 6 months, and he's been registered. Besides, we don't remove boys who are strugglin', eh? That's not Scouting. We work with 'em, but we don't reward 'em until they succeed. So a good SM works with a boy who is tryin' to figure out how to be responsible in his position, but he doesn't reward the lad until responsibility is really demonstrated for 4 months, or 6 months. That's the Scouting program. We also don't remove lads that the other boys have elected. That's up to them, eh? It's how we teach citizenship. That's the Scouting program, too. Shame folks sittin' on committees forget the Scoutin' program so easily. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  10. Is doing "doin' as little as possible" meant to be another way of saying doing the minimum requirements is not enough? You betcha, if the minimum requirement is just to be registered and not kicked out of a position for bullying. Takes higher expectations than that to teach character and values. Should take higher expectations than that to earn awards and accolades. I thought we were supposed to respect and honor volunteers who give of their time to work with the youth. You betcha. These cases only come up when we are tryin' to override the judgment of the volunteers who are givin' their time and energy workin' with the youth, eh? When we're tryin' to micromanage what they think "active" should be in their unit to help kids grow and convey the values they want to teach. To honor and respect volunteers, we let them decide. We don't try to hamstring 'em with this sort of laughable definition of "active." They know the kids and the values they are tryin' to teach, and how to reach the individual lad better than the Irving office does. Beavah
  11. Bylaws for a Troop should not include anything the BSA has already defined. Why not? Da BSA says that shootin' sports are OK, but a Quaker unit may choose to prohibit their unit from doin' that sort of stuff. The BSA program materials say that the troop treasurer handles the money and should be a committee member, but we've got a small religious school where the school bookkeeper handles the scout accounts. Troop Committee Guide says there should be an adult Outings Chair, but I know a lot of units that don't use the position because they feel runnin' outings is a youth/PLC job and they don't want anyone on the committee micromanagin'. There are all kinds of ways and places where it's perfectly appropriate for a unit to do somethin' different than what's in the BSA program materials. Puttin' such things in a bylaws or committee rules document helps communicate those things to new folks and lessen disputes. And a good set of bylaws can even specify da scope of authority of a committee or position so as to prevent the sort of micromanagin' shortridge is talking about. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  12. Yah, lots of folks pretty "down" about unit committee bylaws, eh? It's true I've seen lots of bad ones. It's also true what FScouter said - bylaws don't solve problems after the fact. Yeh should always avoid the temptation to legislate after dealin' with an "issue." Makes for bad legislation. At the same time, there are all kinds of things about unit operations where bylaws are helpful. Bylaws are particularly useful at preventing problems if they're well written, because they are impersonal. They offer guidance that isn't all caught up in da personality disputes of the moment. They also are a form of communication - communication about procedures, but also about values and vision. Unit meltdowns are almost always all about adults who don't share vision/values and aren't communicatin'. Here are some areas where havin' something written down and practiced I think has some merit, and isn't covered in any of the BSA literature, or only in a cursory way. Who sits on the committee? How are they selected/vetted/approved? How does the committee make decisions? How are committee jobs chosen/assigned? How does the CO/COR/IH interact and what are the reporting requirements of the unit to the CO? How are unit leaders and assistant unit leaders selected/vetted/approved? How are fees handled? How are scout accounts handled? How is fundraising revenue handled/divided? What are the accounting controls and oversight of the treasury? How are donations handled? How are expenditures handled for events? How are expenditures handled/approved for capital purchases? What are the training requirements for positions? What is the term of office for positions? Term limits? What are the procedures for handling complaints? What are the procedures for handling "hard cases" like a decision to remove a scout for disciplinary reasons. Best to have those in place before they're needed. What are the procedures for recommending removal of a leader, committee member or parent? How does the committee protect its process from disruptive members/parents? Rules of order, whatever... something that allows yeh to move on over objections. Let's hear some others. Of course, there are also good reasons why a PLC may want to have bylaws or its own set of regulations, and IIRC Venturing Crews are supposed to develop bylaws at the youth level. Key is all things in moderation, eh? Use bylaws and local rules for what they're good for, but don't go over the top! Beavah
  13. Yah, Scoutfish, we all have the books, eh? Yeh really don't need to copy pages and pages into each post . Da issue comes up in Boy Scoutin' in the Star-Life-Eagle ranks, not so much in T-2-1. The emphasis on the upper ranks is in developing character through service to the troop and to others, while building skills through merit badges. Problem is that active=registered and serve actively in a position of responsibility = don't get fired too often doesn't achieve our aims of teaching character through real service to the troop. A lot of the real magic of Boy Scouting on young men is when they're steppin' up and startin' to lead, and makin' sacrifices by choosing to do hard work for the troop rather than do something else. What that program office in Irving is doing is undermining that, by making it officially OK for a lad to get our "upper" awards by doin' as little as possible and rackin' up MBs at the mill. It does happen. Not as much as some think, but not as infrequently as others think. Happens enough to diminish the value of Eagle Scout in the minds of quite a few kids and adults. What really itches my shorts is that da program office is doin' it just because they're sick and tired of dealin' with the calls and threats of helicopter parents, eh? Yah, I agree, it's just drainin' to be dealin' with bad adult behavior by unit leaders and parents all the time, and there's some legal "case management" that's necessary. But I think folks in administrative service positions should have the backs of the volunteers. Or, if yeh can't take the heat, just eliminate the option of an appeal to National. But if we aren't really committed to usin' advancement to teach character and values, let's just eliminate the thing. Nah, we get too much revenue from it . Beavah
  14. Yah, what Lisabob said. It's not about bendin' rules, but about understanding 'em and people's roles and resources. Your district training team really would/should come out and do a special Baloo training for folks in your unit. It's usually not hard to have a Baloo person from another unit or from da district join you; you just have to ask. And the council can choose to authorize a trip to its own property where the camp ranger is available for support even if yeh don't have a Baloo person present. And lots of other stuff is possible, too! Yeh have to ask, but both councils and other scouters are helpful folks, eh? We err on the side of helpin' your program, not on sayin' "NO!" As to shootin' sports, the worry is that handlin' arrows and BB guns safely in a group environment takes some trainin' and skill. Handlin' arrows and BB guns with young kids in a group environment takes some real skill and practice. Not somethin' that's a great idea for anybody to do in their back yard, even if they themselves are good archers or shooters. Kids do the darndest things sometimes, even when yeh told 'em not to. So do untrained parents. But yeh can do that campout at your council camp and ask someone from your district or council to come serve as rangemaster. Some districts/councils have arrangements with other community organizations like the local sportsman's club. If not, they can make arrangements. Councils get to decide what a council activity is, eh? And we're here to serve your program needs. So when your program needs somethin', it's like votin' in Chicago, eh? Ask early and often! There's almost always a helpful soul who can set you up. After all, we gave you our word. "On our honor, we will do our best... to help other people at all times." Beavah
  15. Nah, John-in-KC. Or at least Scoutfish would only be a probationary recruit of da Uniform Police. If he were really qualified he'd know that it's still permissible to sew up to six Merit Badges on the uniform sleeve; they don't have to go on a sash. I think some of that attitude comes out of da sort of Cub Scout parent that builds Pinewood Derby cars "for" his boy, eh? You know, the ones that want to finely parse the rules, carefully measure everything because it's really dad competin' against other dads? Best cars in the world are ones that the boys were really a part of - cars that they talk about and smile about and are off in their measurements because they had trouble holdin' a ruler straight. Best races are the ones where the boys just race and race and keep track if they want to and don't if they don't and try cars backwards and all sorts of stuff, not da ones where dads have built an electronic timer, run one "official" race according to the rules with adult judges and the kids roped off back a ways so they can observe without touchin'. Same with uniforms, eh? Best uniforms are ones the boys really make their own and talk and smile about and sew things on themselves a bit wrong and have the funky upside down patrol patch and the goof insignia. Or the ones that they're willing to wear to school . It's a kids' program. There'll be time for someone to suck the fun out of everything when they're adults. Beavah
  16. Yah, I think yeh have to be fair with your son and his buddies, eh? If yeh took 'em around to see what they think of things, you have to weight what they think pretty strongly. So much of success or failure in da first year of Boy Scouting is whether a lad develops "connections" to older boys and adults in the program. That's a funny thing, eh? Doesn't seem to depend on program all that much, just on personality. Kids have a much better sense for good fit than adults... and a much better sense for where bullying or other negative kid stuff is happenin'. Adults can be a bit clueless. Smaller troops can be a bit better/more personal at developin' those connections. Just easier when you're smaller. Only thing that concerns me about Troop #2 is the young Eagles/no older boys thing. That can be a sign of just a newer program, or it can be a tell-tale of a weaker program without a vision for challengin' and excitin' older lads. Eagle is not the goal, however we tend to see advancement as a sign that the program is a healthy and good experience. Oh, yah, yeh need to get over this, eh? Advancement is just a technique we use to help the boys. Works for some boys some of the time, doesn't work for others. It's not a very good indicator of a healthy and good experience. As a parent, yeh can't be fooled by patches, yeh have to do the harder work, eh? Is your son really learning stuff? Becoming more confident? Talking with some enthusiasm about Scouting? Volunteering by choice to join his buddies to do service? Soakin' up the values you care about? Don't mix up methods and goals, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  17. Yah, Scoutfish, I confess I didn't read through all of that, eh? I think if you're lookin' for a one-size-fits-all, perfectly-consistent-across-the-nation Scouting program you're fooling yourself. I doubt that's possible. It's certainly not what the BSA is. The BSA is a provider of materials, eh? And resources, and training. When it comes to unit programs, they don't run anything, and they don't legally or morally have the ability to dictate "policy." Materials within the BSA get generated sorta haphazardly. There's one fellow who solicits some prominent volunteers here and there to write supplementary modules. Documents like G2SS are really a sort of compilation of stuff that appears in a bunch of other places, put together by office workers. Things like the Insignia Guide get put together by small groups of volunteers, and then re-edited by office folks. Major documents like the Handbook get handled differently, with some outside contractors and copy-editors. And nobody, anywhere, is really responsible for continuity editing across different BSA documents. Ain't worth it. Because we know when this stuff gets into the field people are goin' to pick it up and use it in different ways to fit their CO, their unit philosophy, and their kids. In some cases, for a big enough group, we even write special rules and supplementary materials for those units. So if you're thinkin' about this stuff as Holy Writ from the hand of the Omniscient Great Scoutmaster, you're goin' to be disappointed. Instead, you need to think about it as a collection of resources compiled by other good volunteers and a dedicated staff to try to help you run your program. We aren't dictating to you, we're offerin' you services. A lot of stuff that's "BSA Policy" applies only within the BSA Corporation, and not to units. Some things, like "membership policy" (no avowed homosexual adults) applies to those we make registered members. Some stuff that is written like policy, or claims to be policy, really isn't. It's just that da group that compiled the document wanted to make a statement. Some stuff is sorta "practical policy" in that it's a statement about how that office in Irving will handle things (like advancement appeals) if they reach that level. But even that's not a sure thing, because different folks sit on that group each year, so the way they treat individual cases changes over time. All this is just fine, eh? It makes for a great program that can meet the needs of lots of different organizations and kids across the country and around the world. Just don't get too wrapped up in it, eh? It's just children's books for a kids program. So da group that compiled the Insignia Guide made a philosophy statement on uniformin'. If it works for yeh, great. If not, we're certainly not goin' to drop your unit and lose your business. Our business is providing services, regardless of whether you use all of 'em or not. And a real "policy" never makes claims or dictates what people should believe or feel. We Americans don't cotton well to that kind of legislation. Beavah
  18. Yah, they should keep tryin'. Amateur policy writin' again. What's particularly absent (still) is adherence to the Rules & Regulations of the BSA, and any sense of using advancement to convey to boys what a man of character and values would really consider "active" or "serving actively." This version sure sounds a lot more picky and convoluted than a straight percentage participation requirement, eh? Units can't set strict percentage numbers. I think that's an OK thing, prevents stuff from gettin' too strict when yeh should be looking at a kid's circumstances. Now Irving is setting hard numbers of 3 months, 6 months, etc. Some troops and most packs don't meet in da summer months. So if we're followin' the letter here the unit leaders are goin' to have to make a lot of phonecalls! It starts to get a bit ridiculous when national level guidance gets this particular. Many if not most unit calendars are online these days, so how does a unit leader "provide" it specially? And we can't and shouldn't tell a unit or a CO that they must give their time and treasure to a lad just because he's still on the council's charter. Heck, in some councils it takes years before dropped lads are removed. There's an easy solution, eh? Trust the people that da parents are trusting to take their kids into the wild. Tryin' to write this sorta thing on a national basis across youth from ages 5 to 20 is goin' to fail, eh? It's goin' to do more damage than good. My understandin' was that there was better wording on the table, but it got "committee-ified". Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  19. IPCC report is being held up as THE definitive reference Yah, the definitive political reference, eh? Being held up by politicians. I think what's goin' on here is that yeh neither understand the science nor the way politics and lobbying is done. So yeh can't make good judgments about the science, and yeh can't recognize when you're lookin' at a PR/lobbying effort by a special interest. I can't make any judgments about the science, eh? Though it sure seems like if there are a lot of papers on the effects of something (and we are seeing a lot of effects), then odds are it's happening. So despite all the blather, we've got clear and convincing evidence that warming is happening. Causation is always harder and more complex, eh? I get that. But then when we're lookin' at an economic security issue of this type, I'm inclined to take action based on reasonable suspicion. And we're well past that level of proof. While I can't assess da science, I can make judgments about public policy and PR and lobbying, eh? I know how that world works and have done a fair bit of it myself. And what you guys are quotin' is part of a PR and lobbyin' effort by special interests that don't have the good of the U.S. at heart. I choose to be highly skeptical of such stuff, no matter how much yeh want me to drink da kool-aid. Beavah
  20. I always encourage folks to use the term "our" instead of "my". "Our troop". "Our fellow scouts". Scoutin' is a collaborative endeavor. When troop get in trouble it's usually because some adult has gotten into the "my" thing, and must have it his/her way. Beavah
  21. Yah, yeh know... I always wonder why people feel it's necessary to quote books at others. We have the books or the internet too, eh? Now we're tryin' to figure out how to use 'em to help kids, and for that we turn to each other. Different documents are written for different audiences. Da "Official Policy" thing that Scoutfish quotes from the Insignia guide isn't a policy at all, eh? It's a philosophy statement in a guidebook. Da Rules and Regulations are of course policy, but the R&R are written primarily to protect the BSA's licenses and trademarks. They are a corporate document, not a program document. If the Insignia Guide philosophy works for your unit, then have at it. If it doesn't, then yeh do somethin' different. I personally think the Insignia Guide piece is mostly a PR work of fiction. Whether the uniform can "attract new members" or not is not a question of philosophy or policy, it's a testable thing. By and large, I don't think da uniform attracts new members. Same with whether it is "visible as a force of good in the community". Just depends on which community. I honestly don't believe for a minute that more than 20% of that statement is true for kids. It's somethin' that adults like to wish was true, but they haven't actually talked to the boys. And I like uniforms, eh? But we have to be honest about it. They're an adult thing, and they really don't accomplish most of what we claim. We have units in poor areas where da uniform cost is too high; we have units in immigrant areas where uniforming is associated with bad things; we have units where uniforming is less valued and they'd rather families spend the money on a good sleeping bag to go camping with. Some lads just don't like the thing, and a wise SM will try to keep the lad and use the other methods to teach character rather than losin' the boy. Uniforming is just a Method, eh? Yeh use it to help achieve the Aims where it works; it's not an Aim itself. And it's a different method than advancement. There is no advancement requirement to own or wear a uniform in Boy Scouting the way there is in Sea Scouting. And so yeh really can't add it as an advancement requirement if you're playin' by Hoyle. So if yeh want to be strictly uniformed for advancement, start a Sea Scout Ship! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  22. Yes you have, you just seem to be putting blinders on for some reason (which is rather unlike your behavior on most threads I've seen you contribute to). Sorry, HICO, I haven't. Referencin' one paper or a set of fringe arguments that have been featured prominently in a special interest PR campaign isn't an understanding of science. Yeh mentioned earlier in the thread Science, and I see yeh haven't yet referenced any of the dozens of articles on climate change in that reputable journal. None of yeh have yet given a balanced presentation of the evidence on both sides. It's pretty easy from that to conclude that yeh just don't understand the science enough to do that. You're just willing or unwitting participants in a special interest lobbying campaign. No different than tobacco farmers quoting tobacco lobby press releases that there's no "scientific proof" that smoking causes cancer. I will say from a PR perspective da smear campaign bein' directed at the IPCC is creative and effective. Of course the IPCC is political. It was a body formed specifically to provide direction to politicians, eh? It may be that you've never personally dealt with politicians, but I have. Yeh can't talk real science to 'em. You have to frame things in ways that they can grasp in sound bites, popularity, and money. And then light a fire under their tails. That means that reports are inevitably simplified and dumbed-down. IPCC reports aren't scientific studies, they are summaries written on tight deadlines and across dozens of languages to convey a message to politicians. There are goin' to be typos and errors and oversimplifications. Doesn't bother me in the least. What's interestin' is the lobbying tactic being used against 'em, holding 'em to a much higher standard than any other group that writes reports or summaries. Like how vol is willing to question decades of temperature data but not the year and a half he claims show northern hemisphere cooling. That kind of selection bias is hysterically funny, eh? But what's really interestin' (and a sad example of our poor education system) is that it seems to actually work on some folks. I can't evaluate da science of climate any more than I could evaluate the science of cigarette smoking and lung cancer. But in both cases it's not hard to figure out who has real expertise and who is just lobbyin' for a special interest. Now here's da real kicker - who is behind the special interest lobby that opposes global warmin' responses? Who aims to benefit the most from it? The Russians, the Chinese, belligerent Arab states, Venezuela. You're quotin' the arguments of our enemies, that want America to remain energy weak and keep da balance of trade in their favor to continue to impoverish us. And they've done such a good job with their PR campaign and payments to the American oil lobby and some political groups that yeh all think you're being patriotic. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)
  23. So it really does depend on the Troop and how the uniform integrates into their culture. For our Troop, requiring a full uniform for a BOR is not an added requirement - it's just the way it is. Yah, and dat's the right way to do it, eh? But in evry's unit, it sounds like "the way it is" is a bit different. In that case, the BOR is not an appropriate place to be ambushing kids to try to change it. Yeh have to change the unit culture and practice first. I would always hold a BOR if da Scoutmaster said a lad was ready for one. If the Scoutmaster feels the boy has met the expectations, who is a part-time parent volunteer (or a district volunteer) to say the lad doesn't deserve a few minutes of their time? What the lad is wearing might come up in that conversation. Yeh might find out he's never thought about it because that's not how the troop runs. In that case you move on to other things, pass the boy but have a conversation with the SM on improving uniforming. Yeh might find out that the reason he's wearin' an old tattered uniform is that he was ironing his new one right before the meetin' and didn't realize that the iron would melt the nylon. Yeh might find out that he doesn't give a horse's tail for the uniform, and that will lead you to discussions of scout spirit. Yeh still may conclude that his Scout Spirit is just great, or yeh may decide that the uniformin' is just a small part of an overall spirit issue and choose to defer his rank advancement for a bit. But yeh have the BOR. The Scoutmaster sent him, and yeh owe respect and courtesy to the Scoutmaster. Beavah
  24. if he been told that we can't just go without having things in place, what should we do bend the rules just for him? Only if you want to keep him and his friends in da pack. Now others will think I'm committing heresy, but your unit's program should not be held hostage by the district or council training calendar. If it's really going to be four months before they offer Baloo (four months on top of the 5 past months), then you 1) Borrow a Baloo trained person from another unit or from the district, or 2) Call up your district training chair and say you want the trainin' team to come out and deliver the training to your unit this month. The sole reason for the district/council's existence is to support your unit program. They work for you, eh? You shouldn't be waitin' around for them. And if they won't live up to their end of the bargain, read the Baloo materials yourself and schedule a campout at your council's facilities. Then you're covered as to site, and the ranger is available for other support. Your council even has some volunteer range masters who can open up the camp BB gun range. Like Lisabob, I'm a northerner, and icy roads are just a part of life. I understand that some of da more southerly folks get all freaked out by an inch of snow and such. But roads are only bad for 6-12 hours after a storm. Just delay or go on a day trip. If the highways are bad, go for a local hike to the sledding hill with a bunch of hot cocoa. If yeh really want to do this, there are all kinds of ways of makin' it happen. If yeh don't really want to do this and are lookin' for excuses to delay, then yeh need to be honest with the lad so he can go find something better to do with his time. Just please don't turn him off from Scouting for good. Beavah
  25. Once again, the earth has been warmer in the past and life flourished. Yah, this is true, eh? Nobody is claimin' that life is going to be wiped out, or human life. Da issue is displacements. It might be great for Canada, eh? They become the breadbasket of the world. That's not so good for Kansas and Oklahoma, where we get dustbowl crops. Great for tropical critters, not so good for Polar Bears or coral. Life will go on. But da economic and social costs from the potential displacements are staggering. The last time those Greenland villages were around we lost several major civilizations in da Americas - from the Anasazi in da U.S. southwest to the major civilizations of Central and South America.... and a big chunk of da European population to the plague. Now, vol, since yeh seem to keep insisting there's been northern hemisphere cooling for a year and a half... how do you know? On what basis would you accept that temperature data as factual when you are willing to nitpick and find detailed fault with decades of temperature data derived from the same sources that show warmin'. Whereas, you and others have questioned the credentials of others even though they have demonstrated a clear understanding of science. No disrespect, vol, but I haven't read anyone here yet who has demonstrated a clear understanding of the science. Beavah
×
×
  • Create New...