Beavah

Yah, scoutmomma, this is a general discussion, eh? As you mention, I can't know your circumstances and don't know your kids. All any of us can do is take examples gleaned from a few words of text and comment on 'em and offer our own. Hopefully someone who is readin' gets a good idea somewhere along the way. If one thing didn't work, maybe they think of another. Or maybe they say "Hey, I know a kid just like that!" and walk away with a new approach. Your examples just triggered some thoughts in my head, is all. My own personal thoughts; might not have any relevance to your unit. The behavior yeh described seemed a bit unusual for boys to me, and smacked of somethin' untold that adults who missed the bullyin' may also have missed. Yah, and I guess that and what yeh described made me uncomfortable. It'd get me to visit a unit more frequently to keep an eye out and offer more coachin'. So now yeh know that reaction is possible, eh? Might even be happenin' among some of your parents. But if a comment doesn't fit, don't use it. Or if yeh disagree with it now, store it away and maybe it's an idea or way of thinkin' that might be useful down the road, or one to share with another troop at a roundtable. Whatever. We're all just doin' our best to share ideas and perspectives so we can get better at helpin' kids. I'd still encourage yeh to pick up the Bucket book, eh? Beavah

Very hard to follow this thread, eh? Lauwit, I reckon you're right. At least some adults measure their success by methods that seem easy to see - uniform, or advancement/number of Eagle Scouts. How well uniformed a troop is or how many Eagle Scouts they have or any other Method I think is useless for good self-evaluation. Because how well we're doing can only be measured by how our kids are growing in character, fitness, and citizenship. One can have a fully uniformed troop down to the gawd-awful socks, and not achieve any of the things that BobWhite so ardently describes as bein' the true essence of the uniform method. And one can achieve the Aims in spades by just wearin' a necker that is deeply meaningful, like our brother and sister scouts in many nations. I'm with Gern; in the modern world the shops who are dressed casual are typically putting out higher quality work product. They tend to be more creative, tend to listen better, tend to value real individual expertise over appearance, and they certainly attract the best younger talent. Just the way of the world, eh? I can't say that I've ever felt different based on what clothes I wear. When I'm walkin' around I'm not lookin' at myself. I think that's true of most everybody. What makes clothing meaningful is how others react to us/how we react to others because of it. As several folks pointed out, they valued their Scout Uniform in part because other adults came up to them and recognized them as being valuable because of what they wore. Sea Scouts at a Yacht Club get positive recognition in a similar way, eh? But what's the experience of an average scout? Do his peers in school recognize him as being valued or cool because of his Scout uniform? I reckon not. Would they value it the same way we would value a military uniform? Nope. So we have to be careful not to project the way we adults look at the uniform onto the kids, eh? They live in a different world. And in their world, the uniform might not be successful at achievin' all the lofty things we think it does. Beavah

Yah, interestin' discussion, let's keep with some of the ideas and suggestions and thoughts. Both scouts I mentioned did have their own "gangs" -- the problems were occurring within a patrol. Yah, I would take a moment to reflect how Patrol Method was being used in the troop then, eh? A patrol can simply be an administrative grouping. It is that in most troops. For patrol method to work for this kind o' thing, the patrol as a group has to be faced with a common set of real challenges that they succeed or fail at together. In a sports team, that's facing the opponent. In a military unit, it's facing the drill sergeant or the enemy. In a patrol, that might be inter-patrol competitions, or outings or activities that make for real challenges and tax the abilities of the group. In a mixed-age patrol, that might be the challenge of helpin' younger guys. Think about upping the challenge for the patrols to get the kids to come together because they need each other - every single member! The second scout I mentioned responded to the taunting by punching, and it only got him ostracized at school and in his patrol. Yah, IMO this is an example of behavior that isn't bullying, it's a reaction to being pestered and annoyed for attention, by a lad who isn't reading the social cues being communicated by other boys. Like skeptic describes, this is fairly common. Perhaps the classic is the annoying younger sibling who doesn't accept the message "hey, I want some space right now" and keeps pestering his older brother. So the older brother naturally "ups" the strength of the message... and keeps upping it until the message gets across. A lad who repeatedly pesters or annoys others for attention and doesn't "read" the negative response well or ignores it (or enjoys it) gets others to "up" the strength of the message into personal criticism. If then he responds physically to the criticism it will get him ostrasized. This happens sometimes with ADHD and Asperger's kids, eh? Adults can best help it by talkin' to the lad in question and giving him tools to recognize social cues or ways of gaining positive attention. And by talkin' to the other lads in the patrol and giving them tools for more clearly communicating their social needs in ways the other lad might understand (and also to help 'em understand the disability so they don't think the guy is being a deliberate pain, but rather a brother in need of special consideration on their part because he thinks they're cool). Here's another thought: * Praise the bully. Catch him doin' something right, or identify a legitimate strength or good characteristic. Everybody likes genuine praise, but in order to accept it, the bully has to recognize the person giving it as of high enough social standing so as not to be bullied. I reckon schools could do a lot better job by givin' the kids with strong personalities who aren't academically successful some other opportunities to be recognized as valued. For scout leaders, it's learnin' the strengths of our kids and recognizing and playing to their strengths. As adults, figurin' out how to navigate all the many issues and challenges of adolescents is part of the fun of Scouting, eh? I don't reckon the "bullying" label and all the negative response it generates is that helpful. Either the scouters understand and enjoy being alert to the needs and characters of their scouts, or they don't. IMO when there is bullyin' going on in a troop, it's usually because the adults don't. I don't know how to teach that, either - there's just somethin' natural about the scouters who do it well. I recommend folks go out and read How Full is Your Bucket by Rath & Clifton. I expect adults who follow its guidelines will do a better job at preventing bullying than any silly policy or program. But I sure would love to hear other ideas and suggestions too! Beavah

Yah, this seemed a subtext of the other thread, and figured I'd move it to a new place for discussion. The common research definitions of "bullying" seem to be along the lines of "bullying is an act of repeated aggressive behavior in order to intentionally hurt another person which occurs in a social relationship with a difference in power". That's not a bad definition, eh? Repeated aggressive behavior over time with the intention to harm. I reckon we should oppose that in Scouting. But that means it isn't... Hanging out with your friends and inadvertently not including somebody. Claiming that your weekend campout was more fun than your friend's weekend trip. Joshing and teasing among friends of equal social power. Getting annoyed or ticked off at someone over one particular incident. Bullyin' to my mind is an act of commission. It isn't an act of omission, where you just miss a chance to reach out and do something kind that you should have done, or don't catch that someone is in a dour mood and needs to be cheered up rather than left alone. It's also an intentional act, not an inadvertent one where you mis-judge someone's ability to handle teasing or a joke or getting hit by a water balloon or whatnot. Not every sad/upset/depressed/grumpy/shy kid is a victim of bullying. Now that doesn't mean that good adult leaders aren't alert for sad/upset/depressed/grumpy/shy kids, eh? Good adult (and youth!) leaders are looking for opportunities to practice being helpful, friendly, kind and cheerful, and to build fellows up. That's part of Scoutin', and if we're not doin' it, shame on us. Might cause us to lose kids; certainly it's us missin' our chance to grow our own character. But it ain't bullying. IMO, of course. What's yours? Beavah

Beavah, the OP was talking about Scouters at an RT. Yah, but they weren't wearin' official BSA headgear, eh? I don't reckon anybody's arguin'. We're just talkin' around a campfire about somethin' that seems kinda interesting. B

Yah, I gotta agree with FireKat on this, eh? I reckon all these anti-bullying programs are gonna end up like D.A.R.E. Once someone gets around to researching whether they're effective, after about 10 years of big expenditures and bullying "zero tolerance" and mandating participation of every student and whatnot, they'll discover that they aren't effective at all (and sometimes make things worse). There's also been quite an inflation of the definition of "bullying" eh? Da research that got the whole fad goin' had a very tight definition of "bullying" that limited it to what we'd all agree was really bad stuff. But now it seems not paying attention to someone because you're hanging out with your own friends is "bullying" in scoutmomma's unit. I expect this will, as with most poorly considered efforts, do more harm than good. Me, I'd offer the following tried-and-true ways to prevent bullying: 1) Teach a kid real skills, so he is confident. Give him opportunities to use those real skills with friends so he is recognized as competent and confident, and has his own "gang." You know - Patrol Method. 2) Develop a unit culture where the Scout Law really matters to kids and adults, so a bully stands out like a sore thumb and himself gets ostrasized. Pay particular attention to things like troop elections, where social pressure is most obvious. The strong should get recognition by how they lead and protect those who are weaker. You know - Patrol Method. 3) Punch da bully. Hard. Repeatedly. Yeh don't have to win. Yeh just have to show that you aren't going to be an easy victim. Not patrol method, but works nonetheless. Beavah

But I freely admitted my error in public, and offered a very public apology to Pappy on the forums, eh? I reckon that's what honorable folks do when they make a mistake. Don't you agree that's what honorable folks should do? Even though mine was a private error rather than a public accusation, and as you mentioned I quickly corrected the error myself, I still thought it important to offer a public apology. Seems like Pappy is once again bein' honest that for his circumstances and his area, his is a moderately successful unit. What he's actually said is that his unit has had a membership that's fluctuated between 20 and 40, not that it's losing members steadily... at least not any more than is typical in other scouting programs, especially at webelos/scouts transition. If we have specific ideas that can help him improve membership given his circumstances, then I reckon he'd be happy to hear 'em, eh? And that's what friendly and helpful people do for fellow Scouters, isn't it? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Yah, I reckon NIU has ROTC students and Criminal Justice majors, eh? Folks who in a couple years will be carrying weapons as pros. Seems like one of 'em with a concealed weapon would have ended this tragedy with less than half the number of people dead and injured, eh? The man was standin' at the front, leavin' folks a clear field of fire. And he stopped to reload before he continued his rampage! Now, I reckon I wouldn't trust university faculty with a weapon, though, eh? All my thoughts and prayers to those involved, and an official Scout Salute to the many student first responders who cared for their injured colleagues. I appreciated the story of the Michigan Eagle Scout who went running into the building others were fleeing from so as to help care for the wounded. Somebody down there should remember to put the lad in for an Honor Medal. We can take solace, I hope, in the fact that Scouting helps make that kind of young man. Heroes dressed in khaki, not villains dressed in black. Beavah

Neither the number of boys registered nor the percentage of those boys available has anything to do with whether they are participating in a Scouting program. Even signing up the whole school says nothing about what they're getting. Yah, from your lips to other folks ears, eh? Nonetheless, for the moment those remain the BSA's principal evaluation rubrics. So I think BobWhite was bein' fair in raising those numbers as an issue. I confess I had the same reaction as he did until I thought about what a typical small rural town Catholic school looks like, eh? To be honest, the more I think about it, the more running as a consolidated troop/pack makes sense, and probably matches the CO's mission where older 6-7-8 youth are school leaders and mentors to the younger kids. With only about 36 boys in those grades, gettin' 9 boys or so as boy scouts would be about all I'd expect most of the time. Yeh could see in this kind of environment where eventually a high school Venturing Crew might fit - more available youth, service to the pack/troop, without disrupting the tight tie between the school and the pack/troop. It's a tough challenge, and I reckon Pappy is at least thinkin' creatively about it. Beavah

Yah, sorry BobWhite. Not new math, just old fumblin' fingers. Schools is just a bit over 200 students, which is how yeh get to the 100 boys that I mentioned. Takin' the time to think about what one class per grade means also would have made my typo obvious, eh? So the 20% or so is right, and I reckon Pappy's doin' OK in terms of TAY. Without a decision to open up active recruitment to public school kids or non-Catholics (clearly not the goal since they're runnin' things in part as an after school program), I expect he's not goin' to grow too much on average. It's a good illustration how easy it is to misread or inadvertently come to the wrong conclusion if we start out with a prejudice that somebody else is a lousy scouter. Better I reckon to assume he is a friend and colleague faced with different conditions and challenges. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, if yeh want patrol method to teach communication, institute a simple rule: aside from the SM minute, there is never a whole-troop announcement/mailing/etc. Ever. All information comes from the PL, always. SPL and SM always answer "I don't know" to any question from a patrol member. I've found it's helpful to set up simple rules like this just to break the bad habits of adults. Once the rule is in place, adults have to focus much more energy on coaching the PLs on good communication skills and the SPL on delegation. And the kids are held much more accountable by everybody, eh? Beavah

Yah, CaveEagle, this can be a real challenge, eh? Definitely find out what level of allergy you're dealin' with. I've seen several troops that were successful creating a "nut free patrol", where just the one patrol kept their cooking gear and menus free from nuts (though some of the lads in the patrol would occasionally "borrow" from a neighboring patrol for a personal snack). And naturally, the boys in the patrol all received special training on how to assist any lad with an epi pen and all the follow-up care. My experience has been that a lot of these kids are very sensitive to the nut oils, so they have an almost instinctive sense of foods to avoid. That having been said, this is a scary illness for parents, eh? Somebody screws up, your kid could die. I reckon your hardest job will be convincing the parents to trust other kids/PLs, or indeed to trust anything at all beyond a total nut ban. Be sure to make use of the parent of the older boy with the nut allergy as an ally in that conversation. Beavah

I think the Boy Scouts made their discriminatory policies all too clear, and Connecticut officials decided they had to act on that. Yah, nice try, eh? Except that all those other groups I mentioned have their policies in black and white in the booklet that the State of Connecticut publishes!. Can't claim ignorance. Only conclusion is a deliberate agenda to target one viewpoint for exclusion, eh? But I'm still curious. Would yeh have agreed with da law had the Wyman decision gone the other way? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, except the Insignia Guide refers only to official BSA headgear when worn with the uniform, eh? I think the original poster was talkin' about wearin' hats more generally. Fascinatin' bit of history about the Quakers there, SSS! Origin of "hat courtesy" in the west seems to have been an association with helmets. Removing a helmet (and thereby leaving yourself exposed to attack) was a sign of respect or subservience. Wearing a helmet indoors, especially as a guest (and thus being prepared for attack) would be quite rude, eh? That probably explains why Jewish and Islamic culture runs opposite, requiring or expecting a hat indoors, especially at church/prayer. This was also more important for hygiene in years past, I expect, much as hats for food service workers are still required. In surfin' around, I was interested to learn that prior to the late 40s it was considered quite impolite for a man to be seen outdoors without a hat. I wonder where that came from? In fact President Kennedy was the first U.S. President to appear outdoors without a hat on. I reckon the indoor rules for hats started weakening about the same time, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, in a Catholic School of about 200 boys K-8, Pappy's got a pool of about 100 boys to draw from. Assumin' the home schoolers make up for kindergarten. That's one class per grade level, and as we all know boys tend to run in clumps, so I reckon there's some years where he doesn't get/keep any of the 12 boys or so in the grade. Heck, just a conflict with the middle school basketball team could wipe him out, eh? 20% of Total Available Youth ain't a bad percentage as BSA statistics goes. Most troops that grow larger do so not by increasin' % of TAY, but by increasin' the pool - recruiting from public schools or the church population who attend public schools. But that doesn't seem like the CO's intent in this case, eh? They want it closely tied to the church and the church school. I reckon gettin' and keepin' 20% of our total available recruitin' pool is better than almost any of us have done as Scouters, includin' BobWhite. Beavah

Yah, yeh notice I didn't refer to the legality of the practice, eh? I asked whether yeh agreed with the decision. So bringin' up the decision as case law is just a red herring. Unless you truly believe that the law is the only reference for what is right and wrong, and you agree with the law no matter what it decides. Your notion of a for-profit benefiting is also a red herring, because of course we're talkin' only about charities that qualify as 501©(3)'s. Have yeh ever looked at the list of charities allowed by Connecticut? It includes religious charities, like Christian Military Fellowship, which "supports U.S. military & their families, encouraging them to love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ." It includes a number of charities like the African-American Self-Help foundation and Hispanic Scholarship Fund, that discriminate in their provision of services based on race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Yah, there are practical administrative limits for the state of Connecticut that prevent it from listin' every charity out there, eh? To that extent, Wyman has a point. But doesn't it seem to you like the deliberate exclusion of the Boy Scouts was just a wee bit unfair pursuit of a discriminatory agenda by the state, especially when every GSUSA council in CT remains on the list? Beavah

Nah, as we've discussed before, your rights stop when yeh try to drive all ideas other than your own out of the public forum. I'm curious, do yeh think Wyman was decided correctly? Should the state be permitted to make it harder for citizens to give money to charities it disagrees with? Does that not amount to state-sponsored support one viewpoint over another? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I would like to know how many cases the ACLU ever decided against Boy Scouts or their Chartering institutions. Yah, well, the most well known is the one against the City of Chicago as Chartering Org. for Explorer Posts, eh? The one that caused the spin-off of LFL and the start of the Venturing Program. Not a court decision, as the city settled rather than spend the money to actually try the case. Which goes to show the power of a well-funded litigant to "win" without a judge ever deciding a matter. Beavah

Yah, I'd be concerned about the off-axis loadin', or more properly loads through the knot if yeh tried to employ it like the alpine butterfly. Seems like that kind of load would pull it apart a bit. I'm curious what you find when you load it. Double fisherman knots can be a real bear to untie after they've been heavily loaded, but I'm not sure whether this would behave the same way. Looks like fun to play with, anyway! Beavah

The "rules" are the laws of the United States. Get that through your head. It is in my head, eh? If followin' the law is our ultimate end in ethics, then manipulating the law in order to get what we want becomes big business. It's worth spendin' big bucks or usin' smear tactics to get the "right" legislator elected or judge appointed. Worth usin' the laws to intimidate and try to force one viewpoint out. If yeh can't win on one argument, raise additional arguments and cases in different venues in order to try to get your way. It's your interpretation that such funding is unconstitutional, eh? But the courts have split and danced and waffled haven't they? In fact, they've found repeatedly in favor of public funds going to private and religious bodies, or public funds discriminating between people, when the application of those funds primarily serves a public purpose. In fact, lightening up on the 3rd part of Lemon v. Kurtzman is the trend. It's the trend in part because the ACLU-style "take no prisoners" litigation has generated a backlash leadin' to more conservative judicial appointees. How's that workin' out for you? Do yeh think that kind of polarization based on tryin' to manipulate the law to get your own way is really doin' the country good? Now of course there's CIR and St. Thomas More and the other conservative litigators, too, eh? Proliferatin' "attack litigation" really helped the nation, has it? Which puts us back to "only those with a belief in Principles higher than law - ones which cannot be manipulated for selfish ends the way law can - are the best kind of citizens." B

Beavah, the new barrage of lawsuits are based on the results of the Dale decision Yah, of course they are, eh? That's the point. Don't reckon they'd be pursued if the ACLU had won the Dale decision, do yeh? The point is to take whatever legal action possible to try to force the other person to conform to your views. If yeh can't do it directly with a public accommodation argument, threaten their COs and other supporters. Try to cut their access to schools or public lands. Try to cut their funding by restrictin' their access to employee payroll deductions, United Way, and other things. Vilify 'em in the media if yeh can. It's a war, eh? No rules, no restraint or polite disagreeement. All that matters is winning. Gotta make everyone believe the same thing the ACLU does. And yep, the BSA Equal Access Act is a defensive response of similar nature, eh? As such things go, it's fairly mild. A more ACLU-like response would be to start bringin' a campaign to cut funding for gay and lesbian programming at public colleges and universities, to cut support for such folks in public social service providers and publicly administered insurance programs, and to increase funding for enforcement of public decency statutes. Can't let folks who disagree with us receive public dollars or get away with breakin' the law, eh? I don't think that sort of approach on either side makes for good citizenship. Beavah

Much the same as not opening a door for anyone (especially a lady), not standing when someone else entered a room (especially a lady), not offering your seat to someone else (especially a lady and an elder) Yah, to add to the confusion, doin' this sort of thing for a woman but not for a man will get you an earful for being a misogynistic putz in some parts of the country . Heck, I remember once offerin' my seat to an older woman who responded with somethin' to the effect that I was calling her old and infirm and she definitely was not so I should sit my a** back down! F's notion is probably the best, eh? Try to behave toward others as they wish you to behave toward 'em. And be forgivin' toward us old misogynistic putzes (or anyone else) who doesn't guess the right rule for da situation. Beavah P.S. Oh, yah, and don't forget the insignia guide is online now under Publications at scouting.org. No need to pay $ if yeh don't want to. Headgear regs, of course, only apply to official headgear. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

And if the courts found against the ACLU how long would they continue to file? Yah, the courts did find against the ACLU in Dale, eh? So they came up with new tactics, and filed a barrage of suits with new arguments in new courts. I reckon the proper answer to that question is "forever". When you're pushin' an agenda, yeh keep going and going and going until you find da weakest judicial link. If followin' the law is our ultimate end in ethics, as Merlyn and OGE seem to advocate, then manipulating the law in order to get what we want becomes big business. It's worth spendin' big bucks or usin' smear tactics to get the "right" legislator elected or judge appointed. Just doesn't seem like good citizenship to me. In fact, I reckon that's why the BSA maintains that belief in a higher source of ethics beyond the law is necessary for the best kind of citizenship. B

Yah, hi Lisa'bob. Sorry I didn't catch this thread right away. Here's what most of the lads would do up here: "Midweight" polypro base ("wicking") layer closest to skin. Tops and bottoms. Worn the whole time, pretty much. Two fleece layers top, one fleece layer bottom. If he's a lean lad who gets easily chilled, make 'em thicker fleece or go up to 3. Outer wind/rain shell (uninsulated) nylon. Waterproof/breathable is best. Unless it's very warm, this layer is always worn as the outer layer. Yeh adjust layers underneath it. Warm hat, with neck gaiter. Or balaclava. Wool/wool blend socks. Liner gloves and ski gloves. Appropriate boots. That's it, eh? If it looks warmer, put in a pair of sports shorts (to wear if yeh don't need the poly bottoms). No need for a second change of clothes, because if yeh have the synthetics they'll stay warm even when wet, and they dry _really_ fast. Key is to manage things so as not to sweat. So before hiking, yeh shed layers until you're cold (you'll warm up in the first 1/4 mile). When yeh stop for a break, you gradually add layers just ahead of being chilled. By goin' light, he gets to be the strongest hiker, not tired, plenty of extra energy etc. And that makes for more fun and safety. B

Yah, OGE, no disrespect intended, eh? I'll confess to ignorance, though. Now, if it's your habit to castigate the ignorant, then feel free! I won't be offended. I can't say I understand or fathom all the rules for courtesy or protocol in a Catholic ceremony. When in Rome I mostly try to do Roman and sit and stand and sing at the right times, eh? I'm there to support the lads and the units I work with, not really to participate in the ceremony, though I certainly join in the prayer where I understand it. But those were my honest observations, eh? Head coverings on clergy, even on male laity were accepted - indoors, in church. So what you describe doesn't seem like a universal rule of showin' respect or reverence toward God, eh? Perhaps regular folks doff their lids to show respect for the churchmen? And that bishop (and the guy next to him), he had a red scullcap/yalmaka on even when he took off his miter. Maybe he wasn't supposed to, but he did. My only point being that the protocol for hats seems pretty complicated in both churches and in the world, and we probably shouldn't be gettin' our shorts in a twist about it. Ignorance ain't quite the same thing as discourtesy. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)