Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I'm always amazed at bein' in Scoutin' a long time and lots of different places and hearin' somethin' new. I was thinkin' when I read the title that this was some sort of Personal Management exercise, where the Troop Bank paid interest on deposits and made loans at interest to boys for things, eh? Or packaged loans into Collateralized Debt Obligation bonds and sold 'em to Camp Staffers who in turn sold Credit Default Swap derivatives to parents. Either way, it would be an interestin' educational thing for the boys, if yeh found a way to do it well. But what I'm hearin' instead is "the adults hold the money so they can watch and control how we spend it" or somesuch. I'm left wonderin' how that can possibly help kids learn any real lessons about responsibility or money management. Maybe somethin' like that just for first year boys so they get some coachin', but I can't see it for any others. And if a troop does it for the first year lads, I'd have their Patrol Leader or Troop Guide hold the money, eh? Not some adult. Beavah

After Bush beat Gore, liberals were vocal about not liking him or his policies. They called him names and made cruel jokes. Yah, now here's where Scouting comes back in. Do yeh feel that it shows responsibility and character, and is consistent with the Oath and Law, to do the same thing to President Obama? B

But it has become clear that by bipartisan cooperation, Mr. Obama means "The election was in November, we won, now get over it". Yah, I think yeh have to look deeper. What was the quote from one member of da Republican caucus yesterday? Somethin' to the effect that they believed President Obama's outreach was genuine, but Pelosi was the one railroadin' the legislation. That's fairly typical behavior by the old hands when a new president comes to town. I think a big test of Obama's leadership is goin' to be how he stands up to the wingnuts in his own party. If he chooses to be like Bush and just plays to his wingnuts he'll finish broken and despised by 70% of the country. He's got to pick his moment and his issue, but sometime soon he's got to use the big stick on Speaker Pelosi's head. Da Republicans bein' rational and responsible partners would help give him the leverage he needs to do that. If they go all foamin' at the mouth opposition he'll have no choice but to deal with the Speaker in order to get anything done. That's why this loud Limbaugh-style tribal chest-thumpin' is bad for the country, and bad for conservative issues in general. Beavah

Yah, good discussion to have among your adult leaders, Cubmaster Mike. And even with your CO/COR. Yeh all need to have the same vision for what you want the program to be doin' for lads - what the outcome of seven years of Boy Scouting should be in their lives. Then you work back from there to how you choose to implement da Methods in order to get where you want to go. The strictly by-the-book, "no adding, no retesting" folks would argue that once a lad is signed off for the Tenderfoot requirement, he is never required to recite the Oath and Law again from memory, or describe what it means. Just like Ed is suggesting about uniforms. That approach to da methods reflects an organizational vision of providin' an activity for boys to get 'em out of the house and make the parents feel good. Yah, and perhaps a tacit understandin' that a lad can get far in the world by quibblin' over minutia and doin' his best to twist the letter of the rules to his personal advantage, and that's an important skill to be learned. There are some units where the organization really wants lads to develop character. They tend to spend a lot more time on da Oath and Law, but also on conversations with kids about character and scout spirit, and responsibility. They tend to "hold back" or slow-walk lads on advancement until they demonstrate such, though they do it in different ways. I reckon that describes your vision a bit... the question is just whether that vision is shared by the organization you're a part of. Yah, still others care a lot about learnin' and skill development, perhaps as a part of buildin' character. Those units want their lifesavers to really be able to perform rescues, their boaters to be able to boat on their own, etc. Those units will ask and demand skills-based stuff as part of their advancement process. Great thing about Scoutin' is that yeh get to decide, eh? What is your program for? An activity to get kids away from the game console and run around (but still move quickly to higher levels to keep their attention so they don't "quit"?). Or somethin' else? The program materials provide a great framework. Yeh get to decide how you use it dependin' on what you want to achieve as a group. Beavah Postscript Yah, now before anybody thinks I was dissin' on their program for not developin' character or skills because they don't require it at advancement, that's not exactly what I mean, eh? In scoutin', if yeh don't place too much emphasis on advancement, yeh can always develop character or skills with other parts of the program. Some units succeed in that. They're just not usin' the advancement method as well as they could, IMO, because they aren't rewardin' the growth in lads that they really care about.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, all this partisan squabblin'. Sign that the country has run its course. We'd rather behave like three year olds or African banana republics carin' more about our own "tribe" of politicians than about the nation. Or the truth. Sad to say, the intelligent conservatives I reckon have all left the Republican party and the neo-con movement. Rush bloviatin' at CPAC I reckon is a sign that they're finished. Thank heaven. What we need these days are some intelligent, truthful, respectful conservatives to work with some intelligent, truthful, respectful liberals for the good of the nation. I consider the president to be one of the latter. I'd like to find some of da former in politics. I reckon there's a role for government, but not as large as it is currently. Common defense, community infrastructure, basic research. I appreciate the folks who want to use government as a vehicle for charity. As a Christian, I care a lot about charity to those less fortunate. The problem with lettin' the government become the purveyor of too much community charity is that it leads more to graft and callousness than to love of neighbor. Just like police forces, eh? Law enforcement is a necessary community service, but too much law enforcement spendin' leads to corruption and loss of liberty. As for Brent's list of ostensibly government-free products, I can respond to some: The light bulb... yah, I think so. the telephone... nope. Not any of the ones we use currently, anyways. Automobiles... nope. Not any of the ones we drive currently, anyways. Airplanes... nope, ditto. Machine guns... nope, ditto. Iphones... nope. Transistors were developed and commercialized on government grants with public money. So was a fair bit of da cellular build-out, with a lot of NSF and DOD research behind it to boot. Beer, Wine, Coca-cola... yah, for sure. Though I reckon a fair number of those microbrews we drink got some SBA assistance gettin' going, and the domestic wine industry benefited pretty heavily from farm subsidies. Gatorade... nope. Development by four faculty at the University of Florida workin' in tenured positions on the public dime. The Chicken Sandwhich (Chik-fil-A)... nope. Restauranteurs got their start mostly on clientele from the Hapeville Airport in Atlanta, a large public-works project. Baseball, football, etc. ... in these days of tax abatements and community fundin' of stadiums? Yeh must be jokin'! Not sayin' that's the way it should be, mind. But it is the way that it is. Private investors tend only to commit money to new ventures when there's a clear road to relatively short-term profit. Basic research as well as a lot of practical development of more novel or risky ventures has been more of a government task. GPS is a good example - a huge and diversified modern American business group created entirely by government R&D. There's plenty of room to find fault with Obama's proposed budget and plans, eh? It needs the input of intelligent, patriotic, respectful, conservatives. I see Obama askin' for that input. Smart guy. One thing's for sure, though. Incompetent government is a real hazard. I'm happy to see some glimmers of improvement on that score. Beavah

LOL-ROTF! Yah, BasementDweller, that gives a whole new meanin' to the Gilwell song, eh? I used to be a Beaver, and a good ol' beaver too! Now I'm finished beavering I don't know what to do! I'm growning old and feeble, and I can beaver no more So I'm going to work my ticket if I can. Back to Gilwell, happy land.... Yah, if da kids only knew...

Yah, and for those who are into their dictionary etymology: golly slang for "God", used as kind of oath or asseveration among the "lowest people." (1775) So I reckon "golly gee whiz" is probably a double-swear oath with an added vulgarity. "God and Jesus pee!" Or somesuch. Leave it to Beavah was quite da vulgar show, eh? I don't think throwin' dictionary roots at the lads is a leg we can stand on either, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, you all are hopelessly out of touch with da youth. Da language needs words to express mild annoyance, exasperation, and things bein' just a bit screwed up, eh? (Oops, did I now offend somebody by usin' the term "screwed up" because it refers to a hardware fastener?). Fact is, we're inventin' words in that category all the time. Doh! Da 50's generation still uses "Geez" but I don't reckon we castigate our senior colleagues about takin' the Lord's name in vain. The kids are right. I've never heard any young person use the word "friggin'" or "frickin'" or whatever in a way that corresponds to the vulgar meanin' of the traditional F-word. If we adults are too dimwitted to understand the meanin' of language is contextual then I don't reckon we've got a leg to stand on criticizing the youth for their use of language. Be grateful, SMT224. Your kids are expressing themselves while also making a choice not to use vulgarity. That's a choice which should be commended. There's plenty of lads out there who make regular use of the more traditional F-word with nary a thought. Beavah

Honestly, folks, the poor guy has been saddled with the worst train wreck since FDR. We're way off da map in uncharted waters, and there be plenty of monsters. As an American, he's got my support and my prayers, because the Good Lord knows he needs 'em. I feel for the President. He's in an impossible situation. There's probably no rescuin' the economic crash, but it sure doesn't help to have tom-fool Democrats on one side and witless Republicans on the other. The Republicans owe the country an intelligent platform and principled alternatives. Plenty of bright conservatives out there. But rather than rollin' up their sleeves and makin' suggestions while agreein' to do their share of the labor, they're like a bunch of three year olds. Or rather like a bunch of dimwitted bankers who haven't yet admitted the damage they've done and keep wishing it was still 2004. Back then, they could rally da base with worries about assault rifles. Sorry fellas, these days folks are sellin' the rifles to try to keep ownership of the house. Stimulus package was a mess, it's true. No earmarks (which is a particular kind of legislative attachment, eh?) but plenty of foolishness. Not a bill to be proud of. No wonder he signed it way out in Denver. Obama should have vetoed it and told 'em to start over, but I expect the worries over the consequences of that choice were too great. I have to laugh at the "socialist" fearmongerin', though. Given the choice between my tax dollars gettin' flushed down the drain and my tax dollars buyin' a bank, I'll take the latter. If my grandchildren's money is bein' spent, we better end up owning something for it. That's a darn sight better than spendin' 700 billion to keep zombie banks alive and zombie automakers standin' just long enough to get out of Dodge. But yeh gotta admire the sheer brazenness of executives like that. Only bright spot is the economic collapse and oil glut is stranglin' the likes of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Maybe the poor guy can get half a year of relative foreign policy quiet. Won't be longer than that, sad to say. The worldwide economic disaster we've caused will be stirrin' up plenty of unrest by then, I reckon. Beavah

Yah, hmmm. Da point of spotters when boulderin' is that the hand and footholds are tiny and hard to grip (or can even break off), so that it's possible for da climber to unexpectedly fall, eh? Same reason for havin' a roped belay when yeh get up higher than a spotter can cover. That's really not an issue with climbin' a set of stairs, or climbin' a ladder, or climbin' a rope. When you're climbin' some manufactured thing that's well-anchored, the issues are different. For that reason and more, this ain't a Climb On Safely issue. There's no such a thing as a qualified instructor for climbin' a gym rope or a ladder. This is an ordinary prudence and good judgment sort of thing. So long as the rope attachment point was secure and the landing zone was clear, supervised, and padded, I reckon such a setup is pretty self-limiting safety-wise. Lads who aren't strong enough to hold on to the rope well don't make it very high. And no kid is goin' to accidentally let go, eh? Beavah

Yah, I've been seein' this a lot lately, eh? Used to be that AOL awards were given out at B&G's or at a separate AOL ceremony. Then at a different time and place (often a camporee or troop event) a crossing over ceremony was held for the boys who were continuin' on in Boy Scouting. Nowadays, I see a lot of combined B&G & AOL ceremonies, with a crossover held at the Pack level as part of those things. Was there some change to the Cub materials I missed which started promotin' crossovers as part of da pack award ceremonies? My feelin' is if the lad isn't joining, he doesn't cross over. Certainly a troop shouldn't be spendin' its money on materials for him. But yeh have to look at each case, whether you can use the event to "set a hook" for a particular boy, whether the thing is so over-the-top-hyped that a lad will be completely left out of the fun of the event if he doesn't participate. All that stuff. Beavah

Yah, I'd be willin' to cut the man a bit of slack, eh? Judgin' courtesy sometimes can't be done unless you're walkin' in his shoes. These days, lots of fire chiefs are lookin' at monster cutbacks in budgets and the prospect of layin' off a lot of their friends and colleagues. The man might also be strugglin' with other issues at home. When you're puttin' in really long days on really hard problems, sometimes your energy level doesn't match your good intentions. This is a problem for the Eagle candidate and the Eagle candidate alone. Honestly, it's as much your business as whether or not your wife's niece gets invited to da senior prom. You might join your wife in wishin' her beau were more forthcoming, but it's not your place to get involved. Yeh don't mention how big your town is, CA, but our council's experience has been that workin' with bigger city government entities is a real pain in the kiester for lads. Some troops steer boys strongly away from projects that require dealin' with big-town bureaucrats for that reason. NFPs are a better bet. Beavah

Yah, astro, welcome to da forums, eh? By and large, blood drives are a no-go for Eagle projects, for all the reasons others have described. There was even some national guidance to that effect a few years back. Your district volunteers are doin' their job right. Lots of other opportunities out there for a lad to do meaningful leadership and service - and, more importantly, projects that a scout will learn from and grow more in the processes of doin'. Beavah

Yah, interestin' juxtaposition between Fred's comments and Neil's quote from da current BSA guidelines: Sometimes Scouters forget we are advisors, not leaders. and Unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position. Da first emphasizes youth leadership and mentoring. The second obliterates it. This policy is in place to address the problem, which occurred many, many times, that a boy would do his best in a job for a number of months, then come to the SM conference or Board of Review and be told that his job was deficient and he did not meet the requirement. Yah, the thing is that this ain't a problem. Replace "job" with "swimming." A boy would do his best at swimming for a number of months, then come to the SM for a signoff and be told his swimming skill was deficient (he couldn't pass the swim check) and he did not yet meet the requirement. That's the way advancement method is supposed to work, eh? We provide opportunities and mentorin', but let the lad make choices, fail, try harder, succeed. Some lads take longer than others to learn how to swim. Some lads take longer than others to learn how to be responsible. We don't remove a boy from the swimming class if he doesn't get it the first time. Nor do we as adults remove a boy from a POR because he doesn't "get" responsibility and service the first time. But we don't give a non-swimmer an award for swimmin', and we don't give a lad who hasn't yet demonstrated active and responsible service an award for responsibility. We just keep workin' da problem. It ain't rocket science. Yeh just do what's right. Beavah

Yah, hmmm. By and large, lads of webelos age are a bit young to be doin' much questioning of faith on their own, eh? Odds are the lad is just parroting his parents. I think yeh really want to turf this to the COR and IH, eh? It's their unit, and it's up to them to determine how their CO's youth programs reach out to the unchurched, and how willing they are in that outreach to accommodate those who are willing to express interest. Ultimately, if the parents are atheist and they insist that the lad be atheist I reckon that's a decision to part company, eh? The more interestin' question is if the parents are atheist but they don't mind their son participatin' in faith-based activities and makin' his own choices. I doubt a church (as chartering org.) would turn such a lad away at age 9 or 10. Leastways, not a Christian one. But I'd also keep true to the badge requirements, eh? That will encourage the conversation. Besides, it's just fine for a lad not to earn a badge. Beavah

Yah, bs1964, if yeh really don't want a Christmas Tree mix of red & green in your unit, yeh really won't have much choice but to go with all green. Red tabs ain't available anymore. I know a couple of units that just went ahead and bought all the lads green tabs to replace the red ones on their shirts (new and old). Looks fine. That's been the official guidance from Supply Division as well. Most units are just lettin' folks do whatever, figurin' that the new will gradually replace the old in due course. Adults seem to fall into two camps. Da first camp are either adopting the new uniform because they like it better or are adoptin' the new uniform because they feel it's the right example to set, especially for the new scouts who will be buyin' it. Da second group of adults is plannin' to hold on to the red tabs and 80s pants until they fall apart. They're a smaller but more ornery bunch. Beavah

Yah, group size limits seem to be showin' up a lot these days, eh? I hear tell that some land managers are gettin' pretty aggressive about ticketing scout units for hikin' with more than the limit. How are folks handlin' this? Especially in those bigger troops? Yah, sure, yeh can send da lads off as patrols, but in a lot of cases the separation rules are quite a bit more than Kudu's proverbial 300 feet. Enough to require a fair bit in terms of extra drivin' resources and/or adults to support truly independent treks the way jblake describes. How are units adaptin'? I worry that the effect might be that units simply retreat to scout camps and dense-pack group sites. Beavah

If the Den Chief never met with a den, he never fulfilled his obligations. I would never let my son receive credit for being a Den Chief over the summer if there weren't any meetings. Yah, I don't reckon any good parent or good Scoutmaster would, eh? Nor would any lad of character accept an award on that basis. And I reckon that any lad who showed a lack of character by claimin' such an award would be teased or frowned upon by his peers for gettin' a "fake" badge. Only in da oddly warped perspective of office workers in Irving whose kids are long grown does such a silly notion come up. Beavah

Our Troop would not accept partial pull-ups as improvement and he was having serious issue with the pull-ups. It took him til he was 14 to make First class because of the pull-ups. Yah, Kittle, sorry if I misunderstood, eh? The title of the thread got stuck in my head so I didn't realize when yeh left the merit badge topic. Like the First Class swimmin' requirements, the pullups requirement seems to be one of those that generates a lot of angst. In either case, a boy who is startin' a fair ways behind his peer group can have a dickens of a time meetin' those requirements. My personal feelin' is that the Tenderfoot rank is not the place to be holdin' up a lad for years. Just doesn't make any sense. I also don't much care for "partial" pullups because it just feels like a completely arbitrary standard where it's easy to fudge or play favorites. I tell units that are concerned about this to use da bent arm hang time which is the alternative to pullups in the Presidential Fitness Test. http://presidentschallenge.org/educators/program_details/physical_fitness/events_pullups.aspx "Improvement" then can be a few seconds longer hang time, but is really measurable. Of course, like partial pullups this is really subtractin' from the requirements, but I reckon it keeps the spirit and intent intact and appropriate for Tenderfoot rank. Beavah

Yah, what would yeh do sittin' around a campfire if this came up, eh? Don't get hung up on the medium. If around the campfire you would chime in and say "hey, those guys aren't so bad, let's be fair" then go ahead and post that on Facebook. If around the campfire you'd wait and then speak to a lad privately about it, then go ahead and send the lad a private message or email. If around the campfire you'd let it go because you didn't know the lad well enough to be an effective mentor in this case and would instead just tip off the SM, then mention it to the SM. If around the campfire you'd let it go because these are good kids and they were just blowin' off steam talkin' about the challenges of workin' with some younger boys, then let it go. Sayin' nothing doesn't always imply approval. Lots of times it can imply disapproval. Sometimes, it just means it ain't the right place or context to raise an objection, or you aren't the right person to object. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The troop has almost 60 boys, so camp outs are limited to the first 20-25 boys that sign up. Yah, what's up with that, eh? Every now and then yeh hear somethin' new. Can't imagine how such a system works with patrol method. I wonder if this is because of gear (buy more!), or insufficient adult participation/drivers (recruit more!), or capacity of local campgrounds (choose other campgrounds or split into two troops). Can't ever imagine wantin' to tell a current member of the troop he can't come on a campout because there's not enough space. Yah, sure, a few special events might need restrictions. But all the time? I forgot to mention that my son has earned all of the Eagle required merit badges (he only has partials in Personal Mgmnt and Personal Fitness, but they are partials only because they require a specified time period to pass) already plus about 20 other non required badges too. Sounds like leavin' this troop was a reasonable option for yeh, SeaGull. Based on what yeh write here, I reckon yeh should be lookin' for a fairly heavily (adult) organized unit that places a lot of emphasis on advancement, eh? Seems to be where your heart is, and where you'll find the best fit for your needs. Beavah

Behavior (includin' choices, skills) of da oldest boys in the troop when on their own / when adults aren't watchin'. B

Yah, Lisabob, you're in a pickle, eh? I don't reckon it's possible to make a change in troop culture as a regular committee member. In da situation you describe, the change has to come under the direction of a Scoutmaster with some vision. Practically speakin', I think the biggest problem is da ratio. Doesn't matter how "good" adults are tryin' to be, if each adult only mentions one thing per hour, the boys are gettin' "talked to" every 10 minutes. Who needs that? Only two registered unit leader adults on the next one. Adults in scoutin' are present only to assist the program, eh? If they're not needed to assist the program (as drivers, for example), they shouldn't be there. Sometimes yeh can do this diplomatically as a trainin' thing, as in "If yeh haven't completed IOLS you aren't eligible to participate." But this requires the SM bein' focused on the growth of the kids, not the adults' need for "family outings." Obviously, it's best if the lads are allowed to hike on their own, eh? A good SM will work up to this by askin' for the route plan, and settin' rendezvous points or breadcrumbs (when yeh pass this point leave a token so we know you made it). Or just designated cell phone check-in times or a text message on arrival or somesuch. Of course, out of shape adults are welcome to stay in base camp. You can use the new BSA health form as an excuse . I think we owe it to the lads not to be the weakest link, eh? Any adult who participates in a high adventure should never be the guy or gal who is holdin' up the show. Beavah

I think this is a self-esteem thing, not so much a real issue of deeper dishonesty or predatory behavior. (Not that'd I'd be willing to bet my professional reputation on that, mind you.) Yah, question is whether you're willin' to bet somebody else's kid on it, eh? All predators come across as really nice people who are good with kids... with maybe just a few of those naggin' doubts in people's minds. You know, naggin' doubts like you've got. There's plenty of folks who are into resume padding and puffery, eh? We've even seen some really amazin' scandals, where folks without credentials really had been doin' the job very well for a decade or more. But folks who are puffin' because they need a job to feed their family is one thing; folks who are puffin' to be perceived as a trusted fellow in a youth program is another. Eternal vigilance. Beavah

With all due respect, your opinion is respected, but not revered. Thank goodness! Reverence belongs to da Great Scoutmaster alone. I'm just an old furry critter with a cute tail. BrentAllen offers sage advice and perspective worth considerin'. I think he's on the mark. It's so hard for us to read this stuff from afar, eh? It sounds like a whoppin' 7 lads missed TLT. That's gotta be more than half the group. I can imagine a Scoutmaster who spends a lot of time settin' up a great TLT program in October, who then has to postpone it because a bunch of kids can't come because of band & sports, who finally finds a good time everybody can commit to in early January, who then spends days of his own time settin' things up, spending troop money and his own out-of-pocket money... only to have 2/3 of his youth leaders who promised to be there turn out to be no-shows. And then discover they were all at parties or rentin' videos or whatnot. Now, should he call those lads out in public? Nah, I think yeh still approach 'em in private. Should he just fire 'em and ban 'em from positions of responsibility for a year? BSA now says yes, and I know a few troops tryin' that out, but I'm not fond of that "fire 'em" approach. Is it a matter of Scout Spirit for rank advancement? Yah, I think so. And Scout Spirit for life advancement. Is it somethin' that's maybe got his goat right now so that he wants to cool off before he addresses the matter further? Could be. I think one of da things that some parents don't appreciate is how huge a commitment of time and personal cash bein' a Scoutmaster is. And how hard it is after makin' that commitment to have boys or families blow yeh off (and then turn around and complain that they still "deserve" thus and so from the volunteer). I reckon that whatever parents are willing to put up with from the paid, professional coach or band director they should be willin' to put up with double from the volunteer SM, just out of respect and courtesy. And, on the flipside, a Scoutmaster who finds himself gettin' too hot and bothered about the fact that kids are sometimes clueless or discourteous, or that families are the same, needs to take some time off. That's just part of the game we play, eh? The boys are learnin', and so are the parents, and so are we. If yeh can't go blow steam with some fellow adults and then come back and still love spendin' time with kids, yeh should find another hobby. Our example of courtesy matters even more than the boys' and parents'. I get the sense that there's fault all around here, as well as some prior "history." Both sides should stand down for a bit. Spring is commin', and perhaps with it will come some new perspectives. Beavah