Beavah

Hot meal? One hour or less, includin' dessert. Lots faster if it needs to be. Some things to look for: 1) Do yeh have enough burners? Lots of times that can be an issue, especially in the cold. Cookin' one big pot takes longer than cookin' two small pots, and doesn't give as many lads experience. 2) Do the lads distribute tasks, or do yeh make 'em do it as a big job? If every boy has his own eating-wear and is responsible for cleaning it himself, that can be a lot quicker than waitin' around for everyone to finish and then tasking out two or three poor (often younger) souls to "doing the dishes." 3) The bickering thing happens more in same-age and younger groups. If yeh have older scouts or adult examples to follow (who are doing work, not ordering people to do work), it quickly goes away. 4) Patrol cook at summer camp, and make a contest of it. Good meal and cleanup in minimal time. Debrief with 'em each time. It takes stormin' time before they work it out and start performing, and that takes repetition where they're remembering. 5) Are the non-cooks doin' other camp tasks (taking down tents, gathering wood for campfire, etc.?) and then perhaps trading off if the cooks also need to take down tents. Can your lads do "hand offs?" My guess is yeh really don't need techniques. Look at what your adults do to be "real fast" and what the boys do, eh? Then identify the one big thing the boys need to work on first, and make a game of it. Once they get that down, pick the next big thing. Teach the PLs first if yeh can, and then let 'em teach the patrols. Often if you find boys struggling without makin' progress, it's a sign you need to teach or be an example. Don't be afraid to jump in as a fellow cook and be a mentor, or encourage your SPL/ASPL to do so, or make cookin' together a part of your next Patrol Leader training session. Point bein' that if you see a need for teachin' the youth, teach, don't let 'em flounder. Show 'em that cool people and adults do chores without complaint. Not for them, but alongside them. Beavah

Hard to keep younger lads hydrated. Lots of hot drinks, soups/stews, etc. Winter meals need more fats. Cheese, etc. Especially before bedtime for warmth durin' the night. Meats are fine. You're livin' in a freezer. Anything with water content is goin' to freeze. Hard. So yeh need to pre-cut it. Cube the cheese, pre-slice the meat. Eggs I just have to laugh at. Calico is right, eh? Go simple for the most part, at least for the younger boys. Frying and boiling are techniques of choice. Baking in the winter takes more finesse than at least the younger lads can manage. And of course, clean quickly! Beavah

Wikipedia? Surely yeh jest. And of course Yoo is a modern writer and a neocon, eh? While John Dean is a Barry Goldwater libertarian conservative much like you claim to be. Sorry, mate, the "unitary executive" is a modern theory created by neocons out of nearly whole cloth, most of whom were apologists for Nixon's views. That kind of expansive notion of the presidency goes well beyond FDR (himself a bastion of conservative thought ), and is contrary to both the libertarian folks you voted for and traditional conservative values. You've been drinkin' the neocon Koolaid. Yah, those with an imperial notion of the presidency believe he can appoint and remove at will, yada yada. Of course the constitution only vests the president with the power to appoint with the advice and consent of a supermajority of the Senate. And Congress, not the president, may grant either the president, the courts, or the heads of departments power to appoint inferior officers "as they think proper." Plain text of Article II, Section 2, eh? Yeh can't pretend to be a traditional conservative and agree with the unitary executive notions. The two beliefs aren't compatible. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

For a decent exposition of the development of the "unitary executive" theory by the neocon movement, this article by John Dean (yah, that John Dean from the Nixon white house) does a good job: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070323.html as does this academic paper http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=943046 (yeh did say you were Catholic, TheScout? The paper authors are as well, and teach in a Catholic law school). Beavah

Yah, sorry TheScout. The notion of a unitary executive in modern parlance is very much a Nixon/Cheney/GWB neo-con idea. It's anathema to us true conservatives, and particularly troubling to the libertarian style Ron Paul conservatives. Honestly, at its core is a notion that the office of President is closer in construct to the Roman Emperor, eh? As Commander in Chief, he is free to ignore the other branches in the declaration and conduct of war and foreign policy; as Chief Executive he is free to nullify the other branches on anything that pertains to governmental authority with "signing statements." Parliament can dither about roads and schools, but the King calls up the Army. Manifestly unconstitutional balderdash. In our social history, while there were some among the founders who argued for a king-like President, that notion was soundly rejected by Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and those who followed. They rather embraced the notion of humble, and temporary, and deferential executive service. To embrace such a "theory" is to reject the example of those fine men. And the plain text of the document ascribes very little authority to the president, eh? Make treaties or appointments, but only with the consent of the Senate. Receive ambassadors and ministers. Recommend measures to congress. Grant pardons. Request the opinion of department heads. Serve as Commander in Chief. That's it. Beyond that, he is charged with the duty to take care that the Laws (of Congress) be faithfully executed. After readin' Article II, go listen to Cheney's farewell interviews on Presidential Authority and unitary executive, eh? In the end there are really only two ways to do so. One is to try to determine what people meant at the time it was written . . . or to make it up. Nah, that's poppycock and we both know it, eh? There are many ways to read any document. And your analysis blithely ignores the fact that many men of the time disagreed on the "plain meaning". So imagining contemporaneous plain meaning to be some objective reality which can be readily accessed is just a chimera. We are always "making it up." Even the founders. The question is only whether we do so humbly, with enlightened reason, full discussion, and deference to the views and positions of others. Or whether the guy "making it up" can be Unitary. The measure of honor in governmental service is not who "wins", eh? More often than not, the measure of real honor is who defers to the role and judgment of other fellow citizens in service. Beavah

We can try to find out what they meant by "due process" and "cruel and unusual," etc. Yah, but there's no way to ask 'em, eh? All we have are the written reflections of a few of 'em, and some notes. Those deliberations were all behind closed doors. More importantly, those fine gentlemen weren't tryin' to write rules for all time. They were doing their best for their time, and respondin' primarily to prevent the worst depredations of the "unitary executive" George III and his Parliament. (One of da reasons why the neocon "unitary executive" notion is such balderdash from a true conservative/constructionist point of view). We can try to be faithful to the document as it always has been, and not try to change it to our whims. There is no "always has been," though 'tis a pleasant fiction. The document was argued about and actively interpreted and re-interpreted from the moment it was written. Far more important is da force of example they left us - when they acquiesced, either in humility or frustration, to their fellow Americans serving in the other branches. It wasn't their assertion of prerogative that mattered most, eh? It was their willingness to yield. Yah, but I don't want to get in the way of Merlyn's question, eh? Other than calling you or conducting a seance with the Spirits of Patriots Past, how are the various public bodies to "properly" interpret the Constitution? Beavah

Yah, sometimes I don't get some folks. As I've mentioned, I appreciate some of Kudu's thoughts and his collection of materials on his site, eh? I do believe it's very hard for most folks to get anything out of 'em, though, just because it always tends to come off as a bit too strident or critical. But the issues are worth discussin' rationally. So here's a thread on the topic, for those who are interested. But with a caveat/request: Kudu, as a favor, you are asked not to say one negative or critical thing about the BSA or BSA's current program materials. You may only explain in ways everyone can understand what you think is the best way for a troop or district to put together a program or training, and your reasons. No slams about management theory or any of that! Tell us what to do, not what not to do. Everyone else, we must refrain from any comments to the effect of "that is old, we've moved on, etc." or "but the BSA materials say..." Same deal for us. If we want to advocate somethin' different, we must do it positively, not by shouting about what's written, but by explainin' how we think our way better serves boys or units. As close as I can figure, Kudu advocates a very limited set of things. 1) Scouting as conceived in America by Hillcourt circa 1950-70. That's not the same thing as either B-P scouting or traditional" scouting as practiced here or elsewhere in the 1910-30 timeframe. 2) Much tighter focus on Patrol Method (which might pose interestin' challenges when most troops are fairly small, on the order of 15 lads or so). 3) Youth leadership (by patrol), includin' independent camping and travel. I reckon a lot of us would agree at least in part with two out of three. Beavah

Yah, like many of us, I've been a bit enchanted by the video and info comin' out of the US Airways Airbus that had to ditch in the Hudson River. Everybody able to walk away is a darn good landing. Even more than that, it was impressive to see the seafaring pilots finish the job of the airline pilots with equal skill. That first ferry arrived and started rescue ops in just over three minutes from when the plane went down, and did a great job matching speed with an awkward, half-submerged drifting object in strong current. We'll never know about most of 'em, but I'm willin' to bet that many of those fellow citizens - crew and ferry passengers and airline passengers alike - were Scouts. And even if they weren't, the whole lot deserve a Scout Salute for a job well done. Beavah

Interesting but more kool-aid than I am willing to drink. I'd love to see how you interpret merit badge requirements or the G2SS. Yah, and dat's the point, eh? You will never find any document anywhere where the text, of itself, is both unambiguous and just when applied to every circumstance. That's why we have people in the mix, eh? To interpret, and apply, and nullify where necessary. The genius of the founding fathers was not the document per se. It was establishing the social conventions which require deliberation, involvement of competing interests, and delay of time. Those social conventions are vital, eh? They're also why the Nixon/Cheney/GWB notions of the "unitary executive" and their actions in many areas were so manifestly dangerous and anti-American. While making a (strained) argument based on the text and some modern practical practice, they did serious violence to the social conventions, deliberation, etc. that are the core of American constitutionality. The law, in its text and adjudication, is a reasonable means for resolving individual disputes, eh? The law, however, is not sufficient for establishing the foundations of a society. Those must be based on social convention and values. We undermine those at our peril. Beavah

Life isn't Ward and June, Wally and the Beaver. Beaver? Beavah? What do yeh mean life isn't about Beavahs? Honestly, yeh can tie your brain in knots tryin' to come up with rules for this stuff and fail every time. The world is just too complimicated. There's a reason why we have COs and adult leaders in Scouting, and that's so that you can apply your CO's values and use your brain. IMO, any adult leader who can't make common sense decisions that are in the best interest of the boy and the program has no business being involved in Scouting. G2SS provides yeh with general, overall guidance to give yeh some notion of what to think about, but we can't possibly write it to deal with every individual case. A Scout keeps himself Mentally Awake. Beavah

Yah, the feds only monkey with education to the extent they fund it, eh? Any state can "opt out" of No Child Left Behind and all the other federal education regulations so long as they turn down federal money for schools. Your complaint isn't with da feds, TheScout. It's with the state legislatures that have no gumption or courage. B

LOL. Yah, the Harding comparison is pretty apt. Combinin' the traits of Harding and Hoover might be about right, which probably puts him just a bit shy of Buchanan's league. So far I'm quite pleased that Obama is turnin' out to be a very pragmatic centrist. Saw today he effectively is shelving the goofy no-secret-ballot union organizing legislation for the foreseeable future, and he's even stepped up to at least indicate a willingness to tackle entitlement programs. Now wouldn't that be an only-Nixon-can-go-to-China moment, eh? Only a Democrat and our first black president can potentially rein in Medicare. His problem is goin' to be the partisan dems in congress. Beavah

I think it's too cold to camp in a tent below freezing. That's when you use igloos, quinzhees or fly shelters! Yah, there's no cutoff temperature. There's no such thing as bad weather, eh? Just poor choices in clothing. If the lads and the troop are prepared, winter campin' in the deep cold is really fun. I've been out with many a Boy Scout at -30. As a northerner, I wouldn't even think about canceling an event at -10F. That's just normal campin' weather . It's pretty routine for lads to be out when it's colder than that. And ignore wind chill. That's one of those make-believe numbers, eh? Unless you're out runnin' around in a bathing suit, your outer wind shell (yeh do have an outer wind shell, right?) is goin' to take care of the wind just fine. One thing to be alert for is southerners who've recently moved up north. I remember some Army statistics that saw incidence of frostbite and cold injuries something like 4 times higher in soldiers who came from warmer climates. They just didn't have the habits of takin' care of themselves in the cold that the northern boys did. I suppose that might also apply these days to "mama's boys" who have never been allowed outdoors below 70F, and who are prohibited by the Guide to Safe Parenting from havin' snowball fights or going sledding. Check their gear, teach 'em how, and then go out and have fun. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, whatever yeh might think of our resident patrol method gadfly Kudu, his site does have some interestin' information, includin' a whole slew of information from troops that have run their own camps. See http://inquiry.net/outdoor/summer/camp/troop/03.htm, and follow all da links on the bottom that say "camp" or "do it yourself" or somethin' similar. His indexing ain't that great . B

Yah, I wonder if da Bible mentions trolls? Joseph, yeh need to find yourself a forum on religion or those seeking faith somewhere, eh? This is a forum about Scouting. Though I reckon we have quite a few of us who have been readin' the Good Book for quite a bit longer than 20 years, we're meek and humble of heart. Only time religion comes up here is in a Scouting context, and mostly in da section on "Issues and Politics". Try Googling "Religion Forum" for some online places to ply and challenge your faith. Beavah

Believe me Beavah this stuff was drilled into us by National during district executive training to make sure we understood very clearly who we worked for... Yah, I have no doubt. Which is why we have repeated messes like Chicago and Crater Lake and Greater Alabama and Greater Atlanta and on and on, eh? They keep puttin' execs in a completely untenable ethical position. Legal reality is that the SE works for the council, is an agent of the council, and serves at the will of the council executive board. Legal reality is also that the BSA routinely files during pretrial motions to have itself excluded from suits involving the units and the council corporations, and that is routinely granted. Just take a look at the Utah forest fire case, eh? Da corporate insulation from liability is very much a part of our risk management strategy. So nope, National doesn't really get sued along with the council. That's particularly important in these days of enormous damage awards for serial molestation cases. So while I have no doubt that's what you were told durin' your training, and I know from experience that many SE's conduct themselves in the manner you describe, in the hard reality of the real world it's flat out wrong and monstrously unethical. One of the central tenets of business ethics is that a man cannot serve two masters; an exec must understand and adhere strictly to the proper duty of agency and assiduously avoid conflicts of interest. For an SE, that means he must serve the best interests and will of the council corporation and its directors. Beavah

The SE works with the board as a rep of National, not for the board. Yah, they might want yeh to think that, but that's not the way it really works. Council corporations are independent corporations, and the SE is listed as an employee on their 990. Council Exec Board can fire an SE even without National's permission. Been there, done that. National is of course free to peddle the guy to another council. It's this kind of mixing up of the proper notion of agency that makes it difficult for an SE to behave ethically. A council SE is an agent of the council board, not of National, and his duty of care is to the council corporation, not to the BSA. Beavah

Yep, it's tough to litter evac anyone from an area, but nobody would have 11-year-old boy scouts doin' it in any event. You don't get a choice about when a helicopter is called, that's a determination made by the responding agency. There ain't a rope around that you'd ever tie a human into that only holds 250 pounds. So every one of his examples is bogus. NH&S have always been a bunch of third-tier professionals with a Napoleon complex. Glad to see Richard keepin' up the tradition. Personally, I agree with the standard for backcountry travel, so long as it's properly adjusted for women and for guys like the California Governor (who wouldn't make the cut). But the definition of backcountry should be LNT's definition - outside of the day-use hiking area, aka more than a day's trip in from trailhead. Tryin' to make it dependent on evac times, response times, or proximity of trauma care is ludicrous, because those vary so widely. In some areas of the country it would prevent scouters from havin' a campout in their back yard. Honestly, the proper choice is physician's discretion and competent trip leader's approval, and stop tryin' to force-fit some generic table or national 30-minute rule. Beavah

He answered this in the context of patrol solo events, thus I accept this as a guileline covered by council insurance. Yah, just to be clear for the umpteenth time, none of the G2SS is incorporated into any of the insurance master contracts, just like none of the other BSA documents like the Handbook are related to insurance cover either. They are all internal documents meant to be helpful, eh? They have nothing to do with insurance. If yeh teach a different method of knife-sharpening than what's in the Handbook, insurance doesn't magically go away. The real issue for all of us is "what's reasonable?" for our boys and our community. We let out of shape adults with no first aid training at all lead boys in the "backcountry." Is it reasonable for a patrol of older, fit lads who all have completed Wilderness First Aid to do the same trip without the benefit of untrained adults? I like your PD's definitions, BTW, but they're not really set in stone like that. The medical definition in particular is provin' to be a problem on the new form, because it makes most rural communities "backcountry" since there's a long response/evac time to trauma care. The LNT community's view of backcountry as greater than one day's travel from trailhead (travel outside of the day-use recreation areas) is probably one that makes more sense for thinkin' about this stuff. Beavah

The scout is free to find someone who will help him finish his goal instead of accepting someone who will make them start over. I honestly don't get the "start over" bit. Unless the boy didn't learn a thing from his former MBC, he's not starting over. A Scout Learns, that's the first step, eh? Then a Scout is Tested. If the boy has already learned, the testing part is nothing but fun, and hardly takes any time at all. What lad isn't perfectly delighted to tell or show an interested adult what he can do? Only if the lad has been shortchanged, and hasn't learned and benefited fully from the badge is there an issue, eh? And in that case, what caring adult who is followin' the BSA program would deprive the lad of the chance to really learn and grow by pencil-whipping an approval? Your duty [as MBC] is to be satisfied that each Scout who comes to you meets all the requirements for the merit badge you are coaching. - BSA Guide for Merit Badge Counselors Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sure. Who here hasn't had an Eagle candidate at some point fumble da Scout Oath? They always seem to skip "to obey the Scout Law". Sometimes it's nerves or surprise. If yeh really want to see an Eagle candidate's brain implode, ask him to recite da Scout Law backward startin' from Reverent. Nah, too cruel. A BOR should be Kind. I know some units that don't do a lot of dress-up parlor meetings where the boys aren't as sharp on the Scout Oath and Law. So what yeh might be seeing in this unit is one that doesn't do a lot of dress-up parlor meetings. The parlor scouts are always good at recitin' memorized stuff. Or what yeh might be seeing is a unit that's fairly sloppy all around. I wouldn't judge until you've seen 'em in the field. Units that are fairly sloppy all around are sometimes OK, and sometimes worth avoidin'. Sometimes "bullying" comes with "sloppy." If there's no bullying and the unit is fairly small and open to new ideas, it might be a good spot for a bunch of go-getter lads. Only you can tell, though. Look long and carefully, and listen to the boys. Beavah

And NO the Scout does not have to RESHOW a MBC completed Requirements from a Camp or other MBC. If a Scout comes to a MBC with all requirements save 1 finished then all the MBC needs to do is sign off on that one requirement. ------ Yah, BryanSpellman, I'm not quite sure what yeh mean here. In da BSA, there is really no such thing as a "partial" merit badge, eh? No requirement to use a blue card or even log any kind of individual requirement signoffs. No MBC is required to accept a requirement as being complete based on da word or signature of any other MBC or person. It's entirely at the MBC's discretion. What the MBC is charged with is personally ensuring that the boy has met all the requirements before he/she approves the badge. How that's done is entirely up to the MBC, except that it must be done individually with each boy. I agree with yeh that sometimes being too picky is annoying. I reckon if a lad or his SM tells a camping MBC that the boy did a rappel on the campout two months ago, it's a bit silly for the MBC not to take the SM or boy at his word and have him go on another rappeling campout with the MBC. At the same time, I'd say it's not OK for a MBC to take the fact that the scout earned First Class three years ago as fulfilling the requirements #1 and #2 for Camping or Canoeing or any of the outdoor MB's, eh? Those requirements are there to be demonstrated to the MBC, to ensure current knowledge by the boy. Doesn't matter that the SM and a BOR already signed off, the MBC should test 'em for the badge. Now, if the boy just finished First Aid MB with a fellow counselor would it be OK for the MBC to accept that? Yah, sure. But he/she wouldn't have to accept it. Personally, when I counsel badges, I do my best to live up to da BSA's policy, eh? "To the fullest extent possible, the counselor-scout relationship should allow the scout to gain the full benefit of the mentoring, expertise, and relationship with the counselor" and all that. I'd never ever accept a nearly complete card from someone else and just sign off da last thing. Where's the fun and learning in that? I'm goin' to grab a couple canoes and go hit a river with the boy and his buddy. We're goin' to have fun and get wet and work hard and demonstrate all kinds of skills. Anything else would be a detriment to the scout. Beavah

Yah, kittle, there sure is! All of us should be ready to offer help where we see a need, and I certainly wouldn't discourage yeh from being helpful and friendly. I reckon there is also room for improvement in every lad, especially if a bump like demonstratin' something he's already learned leads to discouragement rather than fun or determination. Most boys I know if asked to demonstrate solo canoeing again, or building a fire again, or first aid for bleeding again will laugh, leap in, and whip it off in no time. If your son is gettin' discouraged about that stuff, my guess is that either he was shortchanged in learnin' the stuff by his first MBC (so he's not confident in his skill), or there's too much emphasis on "getting stuff" advancement in your troop's program, and not enough emphasis on fun/outdoors/"learning stuff" advancement. I'd look to those areas as ones which could use help and improvement, eh? Those have substance for kids. Da rules about how long for MBs really don't. Beavah

There is no BSA policy which prohibits or restricts participation in any activities (includin' "high adventure") for reason of lacking health insurance coverage, either for youth or adults. A Chartered Organization may impose such a restriction on the members of its units, but I'm not sure why it would want to (?). Most organizations are in this game for helpin' those young people and families who have limited resources. Da BSA does provide optional, low-limits accident coverage for acute health care needs arising from participating in scouting activities. As someone pointed out, this coverage is provided through HSR. In some councils, this coverage is provided for free by the council; in other councils it's mandatory for all units (and $1 or so charge is levied per registrant each year to pay for it); in still other councils it's mandatory for participation in district/council events (and a $1+ surcharge is levied to pay for it on the event costs if a unit doesn't have it); in still other councils it's strictly optional. If yeh live in a council where it's not provided/mandated, yeh should get in your recharter packet a small flyer from HSR which allows you to sign up your unit directly. It's not at all a bad deal; for a bit less than $1 (cubs), $2 (boy scouts), $3 (venturers), yeh get basic accident coverage which will take care of the ER visit, simple fractures & stitches and the like. Good peace of mind for you and da parents. Beavah

Yah, while what CNY and ljnrsu say is true, it might not actually be the issue, eh? First, a boy can keep workin' with a single Merit Badge Counselor for as long as he and the MBC like, until he finishes his badge. That is what the BSA means by a boy havin' until his 18th birthday. As a Canoeing MBC, I once worked for three full seasons to help a handicapped lad earn the badge. But that's not usually what the issue is, eh? The issue is often that a lad just doesn't get back to his MBC, or fades out, or doesn't respond, or has an incomplete badge from camp. There is no obligation for a Merit Badge Counselor to continue working with a boy for 6 years, or any particular length of time, and there is no such thing as a merit badge "partial" that another MBC is required to accept, and there's no obligation for a Scoutmaster to sign a new card authorizing the lad to work with a new MBC. So yep, as long as a lad is honestly working with a single MBC, he can take as long as he and the MBC are workin' together. But a boy who comes home from summer camp with a "partial" can be told that he has to demonstrate all those requirements by a new MBC, and the troop can choose to assign the lads only to MBC's who agree not to honor "old" incomplete badge work. Honestly, the notion that anyone should accept a two-year-old incomplete badge from somebody else without re-checking the lad on those requirements doesn't serve the boy or the program well. Our job is to teach character, after all. Generally speakin' there's real merit to a unit setting a reasonable deadline for boys to help push 'em to complete things in a timely manner (and a way that's courteous and respectful of their counselor!). I wouldn't be botherin' your committee about this, kittle. I suspect they've learned from experience that this is a reasonable way to help boys set goals and work to finish in a timely manner. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)