Beavah

Yah, but Rick_in_CA, yeh do realize that da BSA you grew up with that taught you those values had exactly the same policy in place then as now, right? Even as they objected to that lifestyle and kept Scoutin' clean and wholesome for you and your friends, they also lived and taught respect for others. Bein' a conservative Christian and bein' committed to tolerance, honesty, and respect for others aren't incompatible, eh? In fact, they go together quite well. Provided yeh remember those lessons about respect and tolerance apply to everybody, not just da folks who agree with you. Beavah

Yah, I reckon this is goin' to play differently in different communities. Da communities like MattR's are goin' to be the ones worst hit, eh? They have a divided community, and now the decision is up to that divided community. People are goin' to take sides. I think you are correct, yeh aren't goin' to change any parent's opinion. Yeh can, however, trade on whatever good will or respect you have earned with them, up to a point. Folks continue to trust those they know and have experience with, eh? So long as you respect their views. Yeh definitely do NOT what to find out where everyone stands on the issue, conduct a poll, or have a whole-group discussion. That way lies dragons that will eat you and quite a few of da kids alive. This is where yeh want da Chartered Organization to do its duty. Failin' that, yeh want a small group of universally respected, wise folks to come up with a nuanced policy goin' forward that is then endorsed by da Chartered Organization. Failin' that, I think yeh punt. Whatever da decision in Irving, yeh say "We have always run the troop locally as we thought best, and in the best interest of all the scouts. This will not affect our operations at all at this time. If in da future the matter comes up, we will address each case on an individual basis with integrity and compassion, so that we can continue to provide the best experience we can for our boys." Or somethin' like that. Beavah

I am trying to coach my kid as how to objectively look at things, do research and stand up for whats right. Yah, hmmmm.... So I reckon this is one of those cases which really is a measure of personal character, eh? One to be thoughtful about as a parent. I'll agree with my colleagues that this appears to be a bad umpire. When dealin' with a bad umpire, yeh can as parent start yellin' and kicking up a fuss, or even go storming out onto the field in front of your son and the other parents, and demand redress! It's always tempting to do that, eh? When dealin' with a bad umpire, yeh can decide to try to teach your son to go diggin' through da rulebooks to try to lawyer the outcome he wants by arguin' this policy or that wording. That, too, is tempting. At least until yeh have had a few of your own go through their teenage years havin' learned that approach. Or, when dealin' with a bad umpire yeh can stay calm, say to yourself "It's only a game", and cheer for your son win or lose. In Scoutin' it's easier, because almost no loss is permanent. Yeh get as many "do overs" as yeh want. And then if need be yeh quietly mention to da coach or da head umpire that perhaps someone should think about whether Mr. Bad Umpire needs to take a break for a bit, eh? Followed by "if you need somebody, I would be willing to step up, get all the training, and do the job for da next few years." Your son will be watching you, eh? Boys learn their lessons by watching, not by listenin' to what yeh say. Da lessons you teach by example will last for most of his life. Choose wisely. Now, if I were in a different role like a UC or a CC or a SM, I would be pulling Mr. Centennial Patch aside for an impromptu conference of my own, eh? And you'll find a bunch of scouters who are servin' in those roles express exactly that sentiment. Heck, for all you know someone might be doin' that in your son's troop even as we speak. But that's our role, eh? Your role is to be a parent to your boy, so yeh have a different job to do. Teach him respect, and courtesy, and resilience by your example. Beavah

Anyway, I'm still trying to understand the reaction in which someone decides to leave scouting, not because their CO has lost its ability to discriminate, but because OTHERS have gained the freedom to choose NOT to discriminate. So much of Scoutin' is shared, eh? Shared between lads and adults of many units and many chartered partners. Summer Camp and camporees and jamborees and round table. We send kids on their own with adults not selected by da Chartered Organization as provisional campers at summer camp and on council contingents to Philmont and SeaBase and Northern Tier and Jambo, and workin' summer camp staff as CITs, and participatin' in OA's Brotherhood of Cheerful Service. So if someone feels strongly about this issue, a change in policy is goin' to take a lot of Scouting away from their kids. For lots of troops that rely on BSA bases for high adventure, it's goin' to take all of that away for those boys. Yah, sometimes I also reckon it's not da start point and the end point, eh? It's the change. Folks who might be OK with their child in a public school that has gay teachers might opt out of Boy Scouting because they are upset by the change. The BSA had been a safe haven for 'em, a place they felt comfortable with as a family, that they truly trusted with their child. Then all of a sudden someone turned over da apple cart, and now Scouting is another institution workin' at cross-purposes to their family's values. More work to monitor, more time talkin' to their kids tryin' to keep 'em on da right path. I reckon it feels like betrayal, eh? A stranger who doesn't care for yeh is one thing, but a friend or loved one who stops bein' a friend really hurts. That's why da BSA's completely ham-handed handlin' of da issue is doin' more harm than might otherwise have been done. A long period of input, discussion and reflection done in a more open way, concludin' in a final vote where everyone at least felt like things were fully aired and everyone was thoughtful, would have helped mitigate that sudden-sharp-betrayal feelin'. I also reckon what moosetracker said in da beginning is true, too. Lots of da folks who suggested that the pro-inclusion people should just start another organization rather than tryin' to take over this one really believe that. As a matter of courtesy like jblake47 says. Yeh don't come into someone else's house and **** and moan and whine and petition and try to get da owner fired from his job or da city to fine him because yeh don't like his choice in furniture. Yeh just go buy a house of your own and make it better if yeh can. So it feels discourteous in some ways, eh? And yeh don't tend to hang around with discourteous folks. Just ain't worth da effort. Beavah (how amusin'. My b----ing and moaning seems to have been edited by da robot enforcin' appropriate courtesy. )(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'd be concerned about any 17 year old that wants to tent with an 11 year old regardless of whether they are openly gay or not. Yah, hmmm.... Why, Sentinel? Maybe if yeh grew up in a same-age-patrol troop it would be odd. In a mixed-age patrol troop, sometimes that's just da 17 year old Scout watchin' out for a younger boy who might be a bit scared, or who might have some special need or another that merits a more mature lad bein' in the tent "just in case." That'd be da sort of thing I would hope a youth leader would do. I think in terms of tentin' arrangements, we have to get out of our heads da notions we'd have in place if we were talkin' about strangers. Boys in a troop, boys and girls in a crew, they're more like family, eh? Would it be normal to share a room with your older brother? Most of us did at some point in our lives.

Hiya JoeBob, Yah, hmmm... I confess I was repeatin' news media figures. As yeh know, since 1996 most of da research in this area has been blocked by da firearms lobby, so the real answer is probably "nobody knows." National Shooting Sports Foundation commissioned a marketing study in 2010 on owners of Modern Sporting Rifles (aka "assault rifles"). That indicated that less than 50% had purchased through retailers. 10% at gun shows, da rest through the internet or private sales. So that at least suggests da 40% figure is in da ballpark. There's some research in individual states; Michigan estimates 48% of gun transfers are private party sales, based on their State Police havin' a parallel tracking system on private party sales over and above da federal requirements. That's interestin'; my state doesn't have that, but it suggests that some states have been pushin' some sort of checks on private sales, which would of course push da actual number of background checks to a higher percentage. From where I sit, though, both sides are blowin' so much chaff at this point that it's hard to get a lock on any genuinely reliable information on anything, eh? So let's call it ballpark only. Plus or minus 20%. Still, where do yeh think da criminals are goin' to go to get a gun, eh? Da licensed dealer or somewhere yeh can do a relatively anonymous and unchecked private sale? Why leave that back door open for bad guys? Beavah

Beavah, a nameless guy on the NYT opinion section hardly accounts for a groundswell. They didn't even allow comments to the opinion attack piece. Sentinel947, da piece was nameless because it was THE New York Times editorial. Not an op-ed, an editorial written by da editors of the paper, eh? That's a major statement from a major opinion-setting group. Scoutingagain: Can you link me to that case? I'd think a 17 year old Scout trying to make a pass on a younger Scout(depending on the age) would fall under pedophile instead of homosexual. Yah, youth-on-youth molestation is an ongoin' problem, eh? There are many, many cases in da BSA. Most are sealed to protect the kids involved. I reckon it's a bit silly if yeh consider a 17 year old boy fondling a 14-year-old girl to be (inappropriate) heterosexual behavior but yeh consider a 17-year-old boy fondling a 14-year-old boy to not be (inappropriate) homosexual behavior. This is where we're just playin' word games in order not to face da truth, eh? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Most of these groups don't seem like the kind to have discriminatory policies. Hard to say, eh? Up until now, all these groups have sheltered under da BSA position, and haven't really had to have policies on da matter. Da American Legion is a major charter partner, and has generally come down on da conservative side on this issue. There are a lot of parents in "Parents of" organizations that feel pretty strongly on this issue as well, eh? We have a lot of business/industry charters, some of 'em to conservative-owned private industry. I don't know what da position of da private schools like military boarding schools is. It's a pretty diverse group of non-church civic organizations that charter units. B

I could understand feeling your values are desciminated against if they had changed to a policy where all units must treat homosexuals fairly. After all, that would put you in the very position everyone on our side of the issue has felt for a very long time. Yah, we haven't even officially resolved da current issue, and already folks are callin' for exactly what yeh just suggested, moosetracker. The BSA should dump all of the churches and require non-discrimination as a condition of da charter. That suggests that da fears of this "war" continuin' toward an assault on da individual charter partners isn't completely unfounded, eh? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/opinion/the-boy-scouts-fall-short-in-policy-on-gays.html

Yah, OK, let's hold on for a moment. At first blush, I agree with most here. It's hard to imagine a viable case against a church which wouldn't get laughed out of court with a summary dismissal. It gets quite a bit trickier, though, when we get beyond da churches. In all likelihood a lot of our charter partners - mens' groups, VFW posts, "parents of" organizations, etc. would fall under state anti-discrimination laws without da same sort of special protections that churches have. Remember, the Dale decision was fairly limited, eh? It did not give blanket approval to "private" organizations to discriminate. Rather it turned specifically on da notion of "expressive association." It has to be a part of da mission of da organization in some fundamental way, which would be impinged upon by the statute. That case may be harder to make for some of our charter partners, who up until now have sheltered under da BSA's position and mission to instill the values of the Scout Oath and Law. On a more practical level, most charter partners do not have da financial resources to be able to contest this sort of case very easily, even if they are in da right. And there would be no reasonable grounds for da BSA to intervene in such a case, having given up its interest in expressive association in this way.

Aw, packsaddle, it was such a beautiful double-entendre. Did yeh have to spoil it with an explanation? Woapalanne, as I'm sure yeh know, the "gun show loophole" is in fact a private sale loophole, that allows for 40% of firearm sales to occur without background checks. Largely at gun shows. Often in commercial-like transactions. B

Yah, pchadbo, I'll try, eh? If you're from a religious Chartered Organization, your purpose for opting to take on da liability and headache of running a BSA program is to teach young people a set of values that match the mission of your organization. While the outdoors and leadership bits are nice and fun and traditional, the goal is one of raising values-centered young men. That's why our churches are involved. That's why many of us give our time. The way boys learn is not by bein' lectured to, it's not by memorizing, it's not by public policy statements. It's by watching and doing. So da absolutely most important component of the scouting program is providing an environment of caring, centered adult leaders who by their word and lived example teach what we want to teach. Because our fundamental reason for doin' this is to teach those values, and the only way to do it well is by example. To have adult leaders who the boys are taught to trust and respect who by their word and example undermine those values in important ways undermines our primary mission. Doesn't matter if it's da pair of leaders in the site next door; the lads are watching. Now for my part I appreciate da arguments about citizenship, eh? In a pluralistic society, we have citizens of all stripes, and they all deserve respect and compassion. Our churches and Scouting have always taught that, though. LGBT folks are fellow citizens who deserve our compassion and respect, our prayers and love and support. I also appreciate da arguments about gay scouts. Despite ScouterTerry's unfortunately misinformed Forbes article, almost none of us would ever remove a boy from scouting who was struggling with homosexuality. We would be there for the boy and his family, with counseling and friendship. Da BSA policy has always been focused exclusively at adult leadership, not on youth. In adults we want da sort of folks who teach the values we believe in by example. Now pchadbo's questions are a bit loaded from one side, but since folks find me confusin' I'll try some direct answers as well. 1. At this point, I have no idea how it will affect our area programs. I believe da net result over time will be a continued steady decline of membership. In da shorter term we may see some big displacements, though, and I expect a substantial loss of contributions. No realistic assessment would suggest that da folks who are happy with the change are goin' to change those net losses. I expect it ensures that we will see more council consolidations and closed camps. 2. It probably doesn't, though we have a lot more college-aged young adult males around male youth than we have females around, old or young, eh? So da real risks have always been of boy-on-boy and young-men-on-boy, particularly at camp. There are some complex issues, though, in terms of things like tenting arrangements, that would need careful thought. It's not appropriate for a boy and girl (presumed to be straight) to be in da same tent, or for an unmarried man and woman to share a tent. Is it appropriate for a gay boy to share a tent with another boy? Two gay male adults to share a tent? If a straight boy doesn't want to share a tent with a gay boy, is that a disciplinary matter for not treatin' a fellow scout equally? Or is it a YP matter? How about for da adult? These sorts of things will get pretty muddled and need to be thought through. 3. "Homophobic" is an offensive term that shows a lack of courtesy and reverence. No one is pathologically afraid of gay men or lesbians. Lots of people have principled religious or natural law stances on the morality of certain behaviors. There are lots of families who don't let their young boy scout go to PG-13 movies, eh? Just because they want to give their child the opportunity to grow up in an environment without undue exposure to violence or bad language or sexual issues or innuendos durin' their formative years. Surely it's understandable if they want the same sort of protection in the far more impressionable real life world of Scouting. Beavah

Yah, ScoutDaddy21, welcome to da forums and thanks for the question! It's tough bein' dad, eh? I would say that your son is a First Class Scout, looking to become a Star Scout. This is an issue that he needs to tackle on his own while dad watches proudly and silently from the shadows. At least for the first round, eh? Different troops approach correct uniforming for a BOR differently, and sometimes in a given troop someone will go off da rails or have a bad night, just like all of us do from time to time. Either way, it's a wonderful learning experience for your son about behaviors, and expectations, and how people can view things differently. What's just fine to him can give others da appearance that he's sloppy and lazy, eh? One part of character development sometimes is learning that there's real merit in takin' pride in your work and your appearance, and that people notice when yeh don't. So at this point, without further information, I'd say "no harm, no foul." Don't make the mistake of arguin' balls and strikes with the Little League umpire, whether he's right or wrong. Instead, take the opportunity to spend some quality time with your son, and drive him to the scout shop where he can buy his missing patch with his own earned money. Buy him a burger along the way and use it for some quiet support for how proud you are of him. Make sure he sews his own patch on. He'll see your trust in him to solve his own problems and your quiet support as a part of you beginning to see him as a young man instead of a little boy. It's a wonderful gift, eh? Take it that way. Be sure to drop back in next month to let us know there's another fine Star Scout out there. Beavah

Yah, OGE, I guess you're now one of those "liberals" too, eh? Like me in da gun threads. Labelin' conservative Catholics old Eagles or generally pro-gun-rights furry rodents as "liberals" I guess shows just how far right some folks have gotten. Be that as it may, I agree with airborneveteran on da likely membership trend line. B

My son, brought up Unitarian Universalist, accepting and respectful of other's beliefs, may never pass muster if judgement in a Board of Review is coming from someone with a Fundamentalist Christian perspective. Yah, here's da thing, drmbear. Da Fundamentalist Christian lad may never pass muster if judgment in a Board of Review is coming from someone like you with a UUA perspective. Rather than bein' open and tolerant, you have expressed that you feel his views are "ridiculous". So who is bein' discriminatory? There are different perspectives on Global Warming depending on who you ask. That does not mean that one particular perspective isn't right, eh? It just means that lots of folks can be ruled by their own ignorance or biases or self-interest. Steppin' away and sayin' that all perspectives should be treated with the "ideals of non-descrimination, acceptance, and respecting the belief of others" to my mind is abdicating a duty, eh? It's abdicating one's duty to (seek) the truth, and to educate. Abdicating that duty can have genuine consequences for all of society. Now, yeh might make a case that it's easier and more civil if we let da anti-global-warming folks, or the anti-evolution folks, or the anti-gay folks have their own chartered schools where they can teach their own values and have their own teachers. But is that somethin' we as a public want to support? That yeh want your tax dollars to go to? That yeh want your name and reputation affiliated with? How is that different from Scouting, eh? At one level, I'll agree that it's easier and more civil if we let each CO do its own thing. But then is that something that we as a Christian majority want to support? That we want our donated scouting dollars to go to? That we want our names and reputations affiliated with? That's a hard question. There's a claim that lots of folks stayed away from Scouting because of its membership position on this issue. I think that's just a claim myself. But if it's true, then doesn't it stand to reason that lots of other folks will leave scouting because of its membership position on this issue? Is that what we want for da community? Does that show respect for their "ridiculous" beliefs? Beavah

As for Beavah - I honestly don't know WHY someone with the means should not be allowed to buy a tank or a joint strike force aircraft in this country. If you can afford it, you have no legal barrier to purchasing it (i.e. convicted of a felony. etc...), adn you can safely maintain it and keep comman and control of it... it should be on the open market. I've never understood WHY its OK for our government to be able to sell these types of things to other countries governments, yet keep them from its own citizens? If Bill Gates wants an F-15, who are we to say he can't have it? Yah, OK! That's at least logical and consistent, DeanRx. What I was objectin' to was da folks who weren't makin' logical and consistent arguments. I think what we face is that there will always be some small percentage of da population who aren't good citizens, eh? Criminals, nutjobs, mentally unstable, whatever. And there's some additional small percentage of the time when a fair number of ordinary good citizens are experiencin' too much stress in their lives and lose it in some way or another. Get careless, get too angry, make errors of judgment, consider suicide, whatever. On the American frontier, when one of those folks went off, they poached a few birds or shot a neighbor's cow or blew a hole in someone's barn with their field artillery piece . Da problem is that when one of those bad citizens has an F-15, or one of those ordinary citizens who has just hit a life crisis point has an F-15, the consequences can be very bad for lots of other folks, eh? Da fellow with da F-15 has had it with da commy Chinese takin' American jobs, so he flies his F-15 over and does the murder-suicide thing to take out da Chinese Premier's airplane. A fellow can do a lot of damage, includin' startin' a war with a nuclear power, that he couldn't do back in the day. That's not as far-fetched as it sounds, eh? After all, George Washington and a bunch of armed militia with plain ol' muskets started the whole French & Indian War / Seven Years' War. I'm not sure we want to allow that anymore. Particularly since if Bill Gates can buy that F-15, then so can the drug cartel, and so can an Al Queda fellow. I reckon that's the struggle we have, eh? I think we want to allow hobbyists to do their thing. A bunch of civil war re-enactors should be allowed to own their own cannon. If da Beavah wants to buy and fly a MiG, I should be able to do that for fun. In both cases, we should meet da training and proficiency standards for our equipment. At the same time, I'm not sure it's OK for da guy who blathers on about da War of Northern Aggression to be stockpiling shells with binary nerve agents for da future War Against Federal Tyranny. I'm not convinced that Beavah fellow should be allowed to have a nuclear device outfitted for his MiG. Now, I'm a law-abiding citizen, and yah, I'd probably be completely safe owning a nuke. I can say that I would truly only use it in a final defense of the nation, and possibly not even then. At the same time, my owning a nuclear-armed fighter jet would substantially increase da chance that a criminal would manage to steal it from me, eh? Then da criminal would have the nuke. Maybe my kid would grab da keys when I wasn't lookin', feelin' all angsty and self-righteous as teenagers are wont to do. The other thing is, if I'm bein' honest, havin' that nuke would be on my mind a lot. I would be tempted to use it, eh? When readin' about some 3rd world despot engaged in genocide, there'd be a part of me that would look at that nuke and say "Well, gee, that would look awfully good in Kim Jong Un's bedroom." If my son was visitin' Korea and was killed by that nut job decidin' to randomly shell a South Korean beach, then who knows? Lots of folks who seem to be fine, upstanding citizens hit a point, eh? So to me it seems like any weaponry where da primary use is in common defense, should be in some way under da control of da public. An armed jet fighter can't rationally be used in personal defense. So its use should be limited to when da public authorizes its use for da common defense. That keeps me from independently nuking North Korea, because other folks get to have a say. Da same might be said for a cannon, or even an AR-15, eh? Their primary use is as weapons for a common defense role, rather than a personal defense role. So perhaps their use should be limited to when some reliable group of people, rather than an individual, authorizes it. Yah, sure, we can throw in a hobbyist exception, where a reliable and trained group of da public can shoot blanks for re-enactments, or where reliable and trained group of firearms enthusiasts can shoot AR-15s at a private club or range. Beavah

I'm assuming that OGE was referring to 1st class skills, not MB's. Yah, hmm... not sure how that changes anything, VeniVidi. A lad may become proficient in swimming and decide that he just doesn't like it, and opt never to swim as a scout again. He may never practice a water rescue again. But two years later, if he was signed off for being truly proficient, he would still be able to swim or perform a throw rescue if he needed to, eh? Or if he found a girlfriend who liked to swim. . I agree with yeh. If you have used advancement well, odds are that a lad will keep doin' that thing in the program. If yeh really got the boy to being a proficient swimmer before signing off for First Class, then odds are pretty good that he'll keep doin' swimming and water sports, and get even better. Yeh used da advancement method to give him real character and confidence. Same with anything else, eh? If yeh didn't do once-and-done cooking, the lad who is proficient is goin' to seek out more cooking opportunities. If yeh didn't do once-and-done navigation, the lad is goin' to be confident and seek out more. Da flipside is that if yeh signed off without proficiency figuring that the program would provide repetition to get the boy there later, it doesn't always (or often) work. The boy no longer has the advancement incentive. Because he's not confident, he's also apt to avoid da task. Not good at firebuilding? Fall back and let another boy do it. Not good at compass work? Follow along with a patrol mate and fake it. Yeh never can be retested, eh? So yeh aren't likely to be put in a spot where yeh individually have to perform da skill on your own. Unless some SM sees yeh can't do it and is feelin' mean and assigns yeh to teach it, so that yeh can be publicly embarrassed. . But to get back to da OP, what's wrong with a troop that wants to emphasize more proficiency than national's materials suggest? What's wrong with a troop that wants to retest? Are we really goin' to be upset by a troop that insists all of its Eagles can still pass their T21 skills? If they've been doin' it all along, seems like it would be dirt easy and kinda fun for 'em. Beavah

So, its ok to sign off on a scout skill and the scout never again has the opportunity to use that scout skill because through your program, he learns the skill. Is deemed proficeint and never has to use it again Is it OK if the scout never uses it again? Yah, sure, if the lad earns Climbing MB and decides after havin' reached that level of proficiency that he isn't really that interested in climbing, then he might choose not to use it again very much. Not everyone becomes a climber as a lifelong hobby. What we still gave the boy is da experience of becoming truly proficient in a skill. He learned what it takes in terms of work and effort; he learned what it feels like to really get good at somethin' and be properly recognized for it. Even if he never goes climbing again, the character lessons he learned will stay with him. But if we need him to act as a belayer for younger scouts da following summer, his skills are still reliable and we can trust him with another boy's life. Even though he spent all winter snowboarding and not using his Climbing MB skills. Now, my personal experience is that lads who are proficient at somethin' usually enjoy doin' it and choose to do more of it, more often than not. Those Snow Sports MB kids are back out on da slopes this year, eh? Even lads who were a bit scared of snow sports when they first got started. The desire to get a badge was used to get 'em proficiency, and proficiency gave 'em confidence, and confidence gets 'em to do it even more. Most of da once-and-done badges boys earn at summer camp they never go back to, because they never got proficient. They were shortchanged by us, both in learnin' the skill and developin' confidence and interest, and in da character development that goes along with that. The lad who really knows how to light a fire will be the lad who steps up to light his patrol's fire, while the lad who got da signoff but not real proficiency will hold back because he's not confident. The boy who knows how to change a tire is goin' to be willin' to stop and help a person with a flat tire on the road, while the boy who never really got proficient will be reluctant to do so. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sorry SR540Beaver. I thought I was bein' clear by giving lots of examples, but let me try again. Imagine a college student in his second semester of his senior year. Before he can graduate, he has to be retested on every course he took the previous seven semesters. Would you pass? Absolutely YES I would have passed. What did yeh spend your time in college for if not to genuinely learn somethin'? I was blessed by good professors as an undergrad who taught well enough so that yeh couldn't just cram-and-slam-the-exam in a do it and forget it manner, who held us to high standards. And I also learned as a lad from my scoutmaster and other mentors that even if some professor would let yeh get away with that, it wasn't the right thing to do. You should really spend the time and effort to learn, not pass tests. Which of course means that yeh can still pass a test 3 years later. That's the same lesson Scouting should be teachin' all boys. That real advancement and real recognition comes from real learning. Real learning yeh don't forget 6 months later. Where do you see anything I have written that I do not think a scout should be proficient in a skill before it gets signed off? The scout has to know the skill. But just because he knew the skill last week doesnt mean he will know it in 6 months unless he is afforded opportunities to use the skill. Yah, sorry, OGE. Between you and SR540 I seem to be failin' in clarity this week. Must be da accent. Where did I see anything you've written that you don't think a scout should be proficient in a skill? On the very next line! I'm not sure why this is so hard to grok, but let me try to make it simple and bold. If a boy cannot perform the skill six months later then he was never proficient in the first place. Your test failed. Yeh signed him off when yeh shouldn't have. You blew it. You let the boy down by not givin' him da real Scouting program. Up here in da north, it's ski season. Boys who haven't been skiing for ten months are back on skis and snowboards doin' their thing. Every one of the lads who were signed off for Snow Sports MB last February could go out on da very first day of the season and pass da requirements for Snow Sports MB again. Even though they had no opportunity to "use" da skill in the intervening 10 months. That's what it means to be proficient. Because it's winter up here, all of the boys and the adults stopped swimming and paddlin' canoes and whatnot by October if not before. Come April or May, 6 to 7 months later, on da very first day of da season, they will still be able to pass a swim check. They will still be able to paddle a canoe. If they have Swimming MB or Canoeing MB or Sailing MB, they will still be able to pass all da requirements. In fact, they will think it's fun to do so! That's what it means to be proficient. The point of Scouting advancement to my mind is to build real proficiency. Part of that is because if we're goin' to spend our time and the boys' time on somethin', then they should get somethin' out of it. If yeh know how to change a flat tire on your car, then you're still able to do it 4 years later when your car gets a flat. If yeh know how saving and investment works, then you'll remember those lessons from Personal Management MB 6 years later when yeh first get a regular income. Part of our gift to the boys is that we give 'em the gift of proficiency in skills that lasts. But da second, bigger part of that is that building proficiency teaches character. It teaches boys that hard work leads to real ability, and real ability gets yeh real recognition, and enables yeh to do genuine service. Yeh don't have to be assigned to teach somethin' as a punishment for not bein' proficient, yeh want to teach someone because yeh know you're good at it, and want to be of service. Yah, yah, there are other ways to achieve da same ends. Yeh can treat da badges as a taste of a topic and then build proficiency and character afterwards through other Methods. I support units that try to do that. It's just not usin' advancement method very well, IMO, and as a result it's not as successful as it could be. If they're doin' that and also have an advancement-driven program, then yeh get a badge mill. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hopefully they're handlin' da PR on this well, eh? I'm not holdin' my breath. I'd like to believe as bnelon44 does that they wouldn't leak this unless they had da votes, but yeh never know about the BSA. It will be an interestin' experiment. I predict a net loss of members, continuin' the pattern of steady decline. B

I think if we guide the PLC into designing a program that allows them to use the skills, and as leaders stress the importance and utility of these skills, our Scouts will retain them far better than they will because they might get "retested". Yah, sure Sentinel947. That's the way it should work, eh? Da first step of Advancement is "A Scout Learns". The scout should learn by doing and repeating, using the skills over and over while being coached and then on his own. Only after that first step of Advancement does the second step come in, eh? "A Scout is Tested". And then there's still another check, because sometimes the lad doin' the test blows it, or da lad takin' the test fakes it well enough (easier to do with all these memorize/bookwork requirements). Da problem is that Step 1: A Scout Learns takes time and practice, eh? Just like you describe. Yeh have to plan and cook a lot of meals before yeh become proficient at cooking. Yeh have to do a lot of swimming before yeh are proficient at swimming. It takes a lot of practice before yeh can reliably put on a good splint or do other first aid. But da materials and guidance from national never explains that, eh? It never says "obviously, a boy who has only helped with cooking two meals in his life is not proficient in cooking and not ready to be tested, and if tested he should not pass." It never says "obviously, a boy who has only seen a demonstration of water rescue methods once and then spent 20 minutes on them is not yet proficient, and testing or signing him off on water rescue would be dangerous and irresponsible." Instead, some of da materials from National do what JMHawkins points out, eh? They seem to encourage da path of least resistance. No retesting, no adding, First Class in a year, etc. Adults who themselves have weak skills or are unfamiliar with da program seem to take that to heart, eh? Just look at these forums and how many people ignore or are unaware of all the rest of the advancement literature, Rules & Regulations and history, but they can repeatedly spout "no adding to the requirements." To be fair to National, those little bits that get over-quoted are really peripheral to the whole program; just a few sentences here and there largely because da national office is sick and tired of dealin' with appeals and threats. But as a result da national advancement team for da last decade in particular has been very poor in their communication to councils, and themselves overemphasized these peripheral points. So yeh get even caring, experienced fellows like OGE who start to believe that a boy who passes the test should not be proficient. Da proficiency only comes after he passed da test and got the rank, through repetition and practice. The problem with that is that the whole point of the Advancement Method is to provide an incentive for the boy to do the hard work of practice and repetition to achieve proficiency, eh? If yeh give him da cookie without bein' proficient, then there's no point to the method. Lads who would have been motivated without advancement will still achieve, of course. Chalk that up to the family, not to Scouting. But lads whom da Advancement Method and Scouting would have helped get short changed, eh? After they get da cookie, they aren't motivated to do the hard work for proficiency without an incentive. So they end up bein' Life and Eagle Scouts who are fakin' their skills and talkin' a good game. Probably like their adult leaders. Beavah

Yah, you're funny! To bear arms is a term of art, eh? As to da Founding Fathers being "specific", let me just remind yeh that da plural "arms" also refers to heraldry, eh? As in a "coat of arms." So a plain-text reading of da Constitution which ignores da whole well-regulated militia bit that yeh don't seem to like actually just protects the right of Americans to keep and bear symbols of heraldry. If they wanted it to mean "guns", "they would in some manner have delineated" right? But let's keep this dirt simple. A rocket-propelled grenade or other light antitank weapon and launcher is perfectly portable by a human being, is sold by arms dealers worldwide, and has been part of official U.S. government "arms sales" with various nations. So it's legally defined as "arms" by da U.S., and it can be borne no matter how badly yeh mangle da definitions of those words. So again, in your opinion and accordin' to your definitions, does that mean that my right to a high-explosive rocket-propelled antitank munition cannot be infringed? As to cannon, let me quote Thomas Jefferson's correspondence in da lead-up to the War of 1812: "Great Britain ought not to complain: for, since the date of the order forbidding that any of the belligerent powers should equip themselves in our ports with our arms, these two cannon are all that have escaped the vigilance of our officers, on the part of their enemies... it is equally true that more than ten times that number of Americans are at this moment on board English ships of war, who have been taken forcibly from our merchant vessels, at sea or in port wherever met with, & compelled to bear arms against the friends of their country. So for Jefferson and his contemporaries, "arms" included full-out ships cannon, the most powerful weapons of the day. And "bearing arms" included being part of a ship's company and firing those cannon. Of course there are similar things from Hamilton, Madison, Washington, and any contemporaries. And we can take da definition of "arms" all the way back to da Latin, where it has always meant "weapons" in da generic sense, includin' catapults. That's why guns are called "small arms", eh? Da definition of "bear" that yeh are lookin' for is not "to carry", BTW, any more than "to bear fruit" means that you're carrying a fruit basket. Beavah

AIEEEEE!!! Holdin' kids to expectations is not "punishment". Not giving kids awards is not "punishment". Da entitlement mentality in Scoutin' and da U.S. will be the death of us. Imagine a college student in his second semester of his senior year. Before he can graduate, he has to be retested on every course he took the previous seven semesters. Would you pass? Well, I reckon some of us had to take da Bar Exam, testin' us on all da courses of all three years of law school. I reckon other folks here had to take medical board exams, eh? Other folks who have gone through business school will tell yeh that many have a "capstone" course or experience that requires yeh to use all da knowledge from all your courses. Anybody who has done graduate work will probably tell yeh they had to pass oral and written qualifyin' exams, testing 'em on all da material in all their courses. So I'd say da answer is ABSOLUTELY YES. If yeh really learned da material, of course you can pass a comprehensive exam. Just like if yeh really learned how to ride a bike, of course yeh can still ride a bike. You wouldn't ask your sons to retake a final if you found out that they don't remember where Columbus landed in the new world, why require a Scout to retake a proficiency test at a board of review? He already was tested and he passed the test. Well, first off, I reckon every kid in high school and most kids in middle school will tell yeh that after they were already tested and passed da test, they still had to pass a final exam some significant time later in order to get credit for da course. Just passing an individual test is not enough. Da kids all get this. For them it's normal and makes perfect sense, and any lad who has really learned a skill is more than happy to demonstrate it over and over again. Just ask him to do an ollie on his skateboard, eh? If he's proficient, the lad will be happy to do it over and over again whenever you'd like. It just astounds me when da adults don't get it. I think it's because da adults really aren't proficient in their skills. Makin' excuses for the boys is really just a way of makin' excuses for their own lack of proficiency. But yah, sure, if any of my children weren't able to do somethin' that I thought they should know how to do, you bet I sent 'em back to work on it some more! What parent wouldn't? Beavah

Yah, right there with yeh, DeanRx. I think my biggest disappointment is that none of da proposals really seems to address the mental health system at all. That's a missed opportunity to do somethin' that might genuinely help prevent some of these cases, as well as serve many individuals and families who could frankly use da help. Vol_scouter, I couldn't parse half of that. Let's keep it simple. A grenade launcher is an arm. If yeh truly maintain that da right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, with an expansive readin' of the term infringed and assiduously ignorin' that whole bit about well-regulated militia, then how can yeh justify federal regulations prohibiting private ownership of grenade launchers? Why can my constitutional right to bear arms be infringed in that way? Individuals absolutely owned cannons, mortars and all da rest in da Revolution and the early days of the Republic. Private commercial shipping routinely sailed armed. Why can da government now infringe on my right to own a howitzer? An armament is an armament, eh? There's no qualification in da Second Amendment that limits it to guns. What do yeh say to this issue? I really want to know. I do enjoy how I've magically become a liberal because I believe in responsible gun ownership. I reckon that's da tale of modern "conservatives", eh? They just keep droppin' that "responsible" part, no matter what da issue is. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... Good thoughts, DeanRx. I confess I don't hold with any one notion myself; I think it's interestin' to explore da options. I guess I'd lean toward TwoCubDad's approach, since it's more in tune with my conservative views, but let me respond to yours. I think we have a pretty broad consensus on da mental health side of things here as well. It's interestin' to me that you're willing to dispense with rights to liberty and due process quite so readily. Those are, after all, very strong Constitutional rights. That havin' been said, I'd be in favor of revamping da approach to mental health care mostly along da lines you suggest. We have to be somewhat cautious about protectin' folks rights to liberty and due process, of course, but as long as we build that in thoughtfully, I'm OK. We've strayed too far da other way. All rights are subject to appropriate regulation and limits for da safety of society. I reckon there should also be a system in place like there is for child abuse, where anyone can make a report on someone they feel has become unsafe/mentally unstable with firearms, and some professionals like teachers, physicians, and firearms instructors should be mandatory reporters. Da much harder question is how do we pay for that? Perhaps the biggest drive toward dismantling da mental health system was caused by the cost savings states and insurers realized. Addin' to the homeless is a lot cheaper than institutionalization. I'd be supportive of da relatively low-cost, one-time expenses in terms of school security that yeh mention. Those offer reasonable protection for reasonable cost. Probably a bit of funding for training/coordination between the school folks and the local PD (the way there's training/coordination on fire safety and inspections with da local fire department) is a good notion. I have a bigger problem with da practicalities of zero-tolerance enforcement/incarceration that yeh propose. While I understand da emotional attractiveness of it, it's very very expensive, and often hard to make work. It's never as easy or clean-cut as yeh portray it, either. Decent folks get tagged for "brandishing" sometimes on technicalities, and I don't reckon we really want to send the family breadwinner up for 5 years for a moment's thoughtlessness. Yeh get a quadruple-whammy on such things, eh? Yeh have to pay for da prosecution, da incarceration, da loss of tax revenue from the fellow who loses his job and probably can't get a good one when he gets out, and da social service support of his family. If yeh must have a justice system or regulatory response, then license to carry, use, or purchase firearms or ammunition should be graduated like drivers' licenses, with a combination of required education and mentoring at the start for young folks, workin' up to higher classifications with more responsibility. Yeh want to hunt, get trained and licensed for that; yeh want to carry for protection in crowded public places, get trained and licensed for that. That license should be renewed regularly by testing proficiency at da appropriate level, which includes a basic physical/mental health evaluation, same way drivers' licenses or pilots' licenses do. Da license can be suspended or revoked for bein' a doofus, like carryin' when drunk, which offers a lower-tier, less-expensive, regulatory response short of incarceration. Such a license system would also allow for an independent non-law-enforcement agency to suspend or revoke a license and remove guns after an investigation based on a mandatory reporter callin' in. Same as action to remove children from unsafe environments, eh? Beavah