Beavah

For one troop I know, "Troop Historian" is really "Troop Photographer and Media Guy." The lad holding the position is charged with photo (and video) recording of significant events and outings. Gets to train and manage a couple of assistant photographers. They've gone digital, so the Troop Photographer has to collect and catalog all da photos/videos in iPhoto or something like that, by name and activity. He's responsible for puttin' together Court of Honor, Recruiting, and "leaving for college" media shows and CD/DVD's. A nice position for a lad who is involved but might not be an "up front" leader-type. OTOH, I've never seen anyone use da Librarian position for real responsibility. Sortin' Merit Badge pamphlets in a box just doesn't do it for me. Da most common responsibilities these days for Scribe seem to be as Webmaster or Newsletter Publisher. Gathering information and putting out a monthly or bi-monthly newsletter (mail or email these days), or keepin' a unit website up to date. Can be a lot of work, and real responsibility for being the primary means of communication in a unit. I also knew one troop who used Scribe as the equivalent of Boy Treasurer. Handled the budgeting and expenses and such, collected dues, made deposits, wrote checks (with a $ limit per check). OTOH, I've never seen anyone use da Chaplain's Aide for real responsibility, even among troops with religious sponsors. Beavah

I think "Light Responsibility" Positions only occur in "Light" Troops to being with... Yah, that can be true. I think it also happens with less experienced leaders who are just readin' the materials and feel like they have to use all of the positions listed, whether or not they really have a responsible job for 'em. That's why I'm hopin' a few more people will chime in with examples of how they make these positions truly something responsible that a boy has to work hard at and learn from. If they see it "in action" so to speak, they might either up their expectations for a position, or say "hey, we don't do/need that" and drop the position in favor of somethin' else. Beavah

But it has been reported a few different times that attacks have been prevented from happening on US soil since we have entered Iraq. Bah, humbug. We weren't in Iraq, or doing much of anything, from 1993 to 2001. Eight years it took the nutjobs to put together a new attack between the WTC bombing and the 9/11 airplanes assault. So can we say that attacks were prevented from happenin' on US soil for the 6 years following 1993 because we didn't invade anybody? Da notion that our involvement in Iraq has had a direct effect on the lack of terrorist activity in the US is just bunk. Hasn't stopped stuff in Britain, eh? But it is another good example of political "spin" picked up and reported uncritically by some of da media. B

This brings up the huge question which has always bothered me, and that is why the POR for Life or Eagle includes things like Scribe and Librarian. In most troops I've seen, these are very "light responsiblity" jobs. Yah, Herms, I think we've all seen that. Havin' a few positions with less responsibility than PL is an OK thing, but they shouldn't be that much less. I'd just as soon seem them drop some of those lightweight positions and add a more general "or another position of similar workload assigned by your SPL and approved by your SM." But it might be a good topic. How many of us here drop the Scribe/Librarian/Historian/Chaplain's Aide positions in our troops (just don't use 'em)? For those that do use these positions, can you give us your troop's job description to show how you make those positions "real"? Beavah

Yah, sure, Ed. There's nothin' that the SM can do to stop a lad inquiring about or startin' plans for a project. SM might not even know about it. Heck, the lad could have been workin' on a project plan since he was a Tenderfoot and we'd never know. To my mind, CA_Scouter's question is "what do I do with a boy who is asking about a project idea or comes to me or another unit scouter with preliminary plans?" I figure there are two options. 1) Push him through the project approval process, knowin' that leadership is a real problem. Then be faced with the prospect of rejecting the project at his final review because he didn't show leadership, or 2) Gently coaching him up front that he needs more work before he's ready to tackle the project, and help him develop his skills so that success is very likely when he eventually tackles the project. Or usin' the requirement for approval if his dad "pushes." I'm in favor of #2 myself. I think it's kinda mean to launch a kid on a task if you think failure is a real possibility. Sorta abdicating our responsibility as adult friends and associates, eh? Beavah

If Media giants slant news, there is a cure, for people when they find out the truth to boycott the purveyor of the trash. Yah, now how exactly are the people going to find out about it, eh? One person may know or may do the work to look something up on their own. But a boycott requires lots of people being informed. And that requires media! Even in this internet age, the average guy has to work pretty hard to become properly informed on issues, the voting record of politicians, the judicial decisions made by judge candidates and the like. It's more than a full time job if yeh want to stay up to date. And most of us have full-time jobs already, eh? I think it's fine to hold politicians or individuals in the general population responsible for their role. News media hold a special public trust as our eyes and ears and informants. It's also just fine to hold them responsible for livin' up to that trust or not. Beavah

Nah, Calico, I think you're confusin' some procedural aspects of the Advancement Method with "the Program." The Program includes a whole range of features. Respect for the CO's goals, Youth Leadership, Adult Association, Values of the Oath and Law and all that, eh? Those things work together and in concert. Advancement Method doesn't trump all. That's not to say a particular lad should be unfairly held back. Or even that we shouldn't err in a lad's favor. As I've written before, I agree with you that Star and Life ranks are the proper places to hold a lad on responsibility and leadership. Often not fair springing such things on him at Eagle. CA_Scouter should also take a look at the troop's expectations for those ranks, for sure, or even go back to how they run T21 to make sure they're settin' the expectations they want. Yah, but ultimately, erring in a lad's favor means in favor of his learning and character and growth not necessarily in favor of givin' him a medal. With the proper relationship and coachin', a good adult leader can steer a boy away from parental pressure to advance quickly in favor of learning and success by advancing well, at his own pace. Isn't any one right way. And I reckon someone saying to a lad "hey, yeh don't have the leadership skills/safety skills/judgment/background yet to succeed at this project" is part of why there's an approval process. Your mileage and approach may vary. Beavah

if your local paper excludes scout articles, just start your own newspaper. Yah, that's one approach, eh? That approach got us Fox News. And soon, perhaps, da New Wall Street Journal. The other alternative to creatin' multiple smaller outlets appealin' to various (often polarizin') constituencies, yeh teach honor and responsibility the ones that are already here. You know, puttin' community information and reportin' ahead of personal agenda and all that, eh? BG

In science, a fact typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term fact to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. Yah, they seem to be gettin' a little bit ahead of themselves here, eh? I wouldn't be callin' theories with a large amount of evidence "facts", eh? Da description they give would easily have applied to Newtonian Gravitation, eh? It was tested and confirmed so many times that there was no longer a particular need to keep testin' it. Then Einstein comes along and says it's completely wrong theoretically, and only a decent approximation practically. The same might have been said about electromagnetism, or lookin' further back, geocentrism. The only "fact" in science is that sometimes new facts cause us to completely rethink our way of lookin' at things. Evolution by natural selection has been around a bit, but yeh just never know. B

One more point - there really is nothing in the Eagle process that allows an SM, ASM, CC, AC, or any one else to hold a lad back because he "just isn't ready" to do an Eagle Project. The BSA assumes that once a lad has earned the Life rank, they are ready to do an Eagle project. Yah, da BSA is a big organization, eh? Filled with all kinds of different people, none of whom know the lad in question. I reckon it's a bit overbroad to say that the BSA assumes anything, eh? In terms of process, though, the project requires the approval of the SM, the Troop Committee, and the district advancement folks before a lad can begin, eh? Any of 'em can put the brakes on or steer the lad toward more mentoring, eh? And he absolutely cannot start working a project without approval just because he's a Life Scout. Advancement is a method. It serves the program and the lad, not vice versa. There's all kinds of latitude and discretion built in to allow it to do that, eh? Beavah

Yah, scoutmomma, I'm not willin' to let the reporters that far off the hook. They're the ones doin' the writing and choosing what to say, eh? And they, like all of us, have their personal views ... which they can let become an "agenda" if they're willin' to give up a bit on integrity. But sure, I extend the comment to the whole 4th Estate, eh? Media ownership, stockholders and all that are just excuses for behavin' badly. Corporations simply reflect the choices of a few individuals that run 'em, eh? Those individuals should act with honor. They should recognize that news media have a special role of trust to play in a democracy, and should put that first. Ahead of corporate profit. Ahead of personal gain. Ahead of advancing their own ideas. You know. Honor. What we try to teach to boys every day in Scouting. I suspect that if your SPL brought a 20-lb bag of chocolate chip cookies to camp to give to all the kids, you'd have some words with the SPL, eh? Even if he argued "but gee, it makes me popular" or "but scoutmomma, it's what they wanted!". That's because an SPL has a responsibility to the group, by virtue of his position. OGE, for example argues that it's not Hollywood's fault for making lewd entertainment available. But I'm not sure I agree, eh? Is it a drug dealer's fault for making drugs available, or is it the purchaser's fault? Probably both, eh? But I reckon there's some culpability for those who try to make money off of people's prurient interests, and weaknesses. Just not honorable. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

There was a time, I think, when being a reporter was considered an honorable profession. Honor means, in part, self-restraint. Honor also means truthfulness and honesty, even if it means you sell less papers or your own personal point of view doesn't carry the day. Sayin' that the media are just giving us what will sell best to my mind is another way of saying that the media are not honorable. They've lost sight of that fact that they aren't just an advertising, money-making engine. They are the 4th Estate, the folks in a democracy charged with the uniquely important role of keeping their fellow citizens well-informed, for the sake of the nation. Beavah, you are stereotyping too: local newspaper reporters are not the same as national news anchors and smalltown newspaper publishers are not the same as international media conglomerate corporations. What goes on in "the media" in terms of ratings and selling papers has nothing to do with the actions of individual reporters and everything to do with changes in the industry where stockholders must be appeased and shrinking markets with media monopolies holding sway. Those changes were effected by newspaper and broadcast media owners, with the help of the government that loosened the regulations on media acquisitions and mergers. To blame those changes on reporters is, again, an easy dodge. We have the media we allowed to develop. It's specious to blame the street reporters for what has happened at management's upper levels.

[removed at skeptic's request] We now return you to why some folk are threatened by ideas.... B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sorry OGE. I'm not as sanguine about lettin' the media off the hook. Sure, bein' shrill and sensational gets viewer attention, eh? The same applies if I'm walkin' down the street. If I start shoutin' loudly that somethin' bad is happening or going to happen, I'll get a lot of folk to pay attention to me, eh? At least for a little bit. That's not their fault. Citizens should be alert to the possibility that somebody shoutin' sensationally is really in need of help, or is issuing an urgent warning, eh? There was a time, I think, when being a reporter was considered an honorable profession. Honor means, in part, self-restraint. Honor also means truthfulness and honesty, even if it means you sell less papers or your own personal point of view doesn't carry the day. Sayin' that the media are just giving us what will sell best to my mind is another way of saying that the media are not honorable. They've lost sight of that fact that they aren't just an advertising, money-making engine. They are the 4th Estate, the folks in a democracy charged with the uniquely important role of keeping their fellow citizens well-informed, for the sake of the nation. If they don't do their job with honor, they put the community at risk. Beavah

You know the lad and where he's at. You know your troop's and districts expectations for a leadership project. You're never out of line when yeh are trying your best to mentor a kid and help him grow. Success at a POR, and da recognition he'll get from his peers for that, and the confidence it will build in him, is a far better gift then rushin' the lad to Eagle on his dad's schedule. Beavah

Yah, hi webdog! It's not an Insignia Guide official uniform item, eh? I'd say pick a spot and wear it with pride. I reckon that took a lot more effort to earn than any embroidered knot, eh? Beavah

Yah, hi Inkprkn, Congratulations on gettin' this far, eh? Now, take a deep breath. If you go back and look at the first thread you started, we had some detailed advice for you there in case you missed it. Now to your specifics: 1) At your SM conference, you talk to your SM! I expect he's a good guy, eh? You'll talk about your experiences in Scouting much like what will happen at your Eagle Board of Review. He'll help you with paperwork issues if he can. Bring your stuff. Relax. It should be fun. In the end, you'll get his signature on an Eagle Application and in your Eagle Project Workbook. 2) You didn't keep your advancement cards? Not to worry. If your council office is close, go visit and ask to see the Council Registrar. She/he will help. If your data is "in the system", no problem. If something you need is not in the system, then you'll need to take an Advancement Report form (backdated) to your SM and CC to sign and bring it back to the council office. If your council office is not close, just call 'em! Just not havin' the date on something isn't an issue, it's not havin' the record of something in the system (or having an invalid date). 3) Your Eagle Application and Workbook will come with you to your Eagle Board of Review. Usually they will be signed by the board and turned in there. 4) Depending on your council, you'll need to have letters of recommendation mailed to the Eagle Board of Review (not to you!). Some councils don't ask for letters, but most do. If yeh PM me I can send you a copy of the text we use when we ask for letters. The letters can be "free form" as you suggest. You will also need a resume of your leadership and other positions outside of scouting, and a statement of your life's goals and values. See the back of your Eagle Application for a (very) brief description. These can be in any format and any length. After your SM conference tomorrow, make contact with somebody called your "District Advancement Chair". He/she will help if your CC and SM can't. It's a bit of paperwork and runaround, but everybody in your local area is willin' to work to help you, I'm sure. Just ask. Beavah

Yah, I agree. Too artificial and Boy-Scouty. Venturing aged youth don't need that kind of imposed structure. Crews should simply choose their own officer structure and titles to fit their needs. To be honest, I think troops should, too. Da old law of "unintended consequences." If Librarian (or whatever) is listed, then a whole mess of troops feel like they must have that position, even though they don't have a library and have no intention of getting one. So some poor lad gets a signoff for a position that really taught him nuthin' about responsibility. And the poor kid who's been puttin' in hours and hours on the troop web page keepin' it up to date doesn't get credit because there's no "Webmaster" position. B

So there's nobody on the Democratic party ballot in Michigan??? Ain't that, well, a bit weird . What's a Democrat to do, go to the polls and look at a blank screen (or sheet of paper, or whatever)? Sometimes states are pretty eccentric, eh? So I guess all of the Dems in Michigan will vote the Republican Primary?? That's kinda interestin'. Could make for a more moderate candidate, if there were one in the Republican field. Or maybe "strategic voters" like Lisabob will all vote Ron Paul. Wouldn't that be a stitch, eh? Beavah

Anybody else noticed that of all Oak Tree's Insignia Guide threads, the one about knots has gone on the longest. Yah, there's probably a lesson there somewhere. Maybe knots are like Insurance? Beavah

Okay, now I feel like I'm being tested! Nah, no test intended, mate. Just curious, eh? I think it's possible in good faith to interpret each of the requirements legitimately as #1, #2, or #3. Consistency seems to matter the most within a program. Now, the BSA does sort of set a preferred standard in the Rules & Regs, which is that Boy Scouting advancement is given for proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration. Proficiency to my mind is closer to #3 than the other two. So is learning (as in "A Scout Learns," the first step in advancement). I think to learn anything, a boy has to do it a few times. To learn a knot, he has to tie the knot a few times, and use it for some purpose. To learn meal planning or cooking, he has to plan or cook a few times. Only after he's learned "A Scout is Tested". A test for proficiency should hopefully be as close to a "real world" and fun way as we can make it. And it should be without help, eh? Despite da National Executive Board's proficiency standard, I think it's fine if individual CO's and units make a deliberate and thoughtful choice to set a different standard, eh? I think yeh have to set a #1 or #2 standard in an LDS unit to fit within their program structure. I think yeh also have to tend more toward #1 if your unit really pushes to get every boy to First Class in the First Year. Units that do #2 might have a gung-ho lad or two make it, but mostly boys seem to make first class at 18 months or so. I think the #2 standard also seems to go with troops that do "classes" of various kinds, for whatever reason. Probably because a class doesn't give each lad a lot of individual practice time before a test. Units that do #3 seem to pretty much forego the FC emphasis program in favor of maintainin' the proficiency standard. Just my experience. Close as I can figure, most summer camps use #1 as the standard at camp, for "customer satisfaction" reasons . So it's not like we in da BSA are demonstratin' the proficiency standard, either! Scout on! Beavah

Yah, here's one just from Google: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_051122_id_myth.html Not a student invited lecture, a university faculty designed course, eh? As to the "controversial artworks not being the only ones in the exhibit," the same was true for the lad's planet walk, eh? Only one piece was "controversial." Come on Merlyn. You're a rational fellow. Yeh have to admit that the double standard strains credulity. Beavah

Michigan (sort of - not really for Democrats) Huh? Did I miss somethin'? What's goin' on over there in Michigan? They doin' caucuses for Democrats but a primary for Republicans or something? (that was really interesting on the Iowa caucuses. Interestin' that it's the Republicans who were more democratic ). I confess I'm havin' a hard time getting excited about anybody in this race. I do sorta like the quixotic libertarian off-planet appeal of Ron Paul. He ain't plastic, and it's just fascinatin' that he has such a young following. There was even a Ron Paul Rally in the World of Warcraft online universe! A bunch of dwarves and elves and wizards and such marching through dungeons for Ron Paul. Gotta love it. I've always felt that young people really appreciate honesty more than us old-timers. Right now, I'm thinkin' Bloomberg. That NY feel for packsaddle, without either Rudy's or Hillary's baggage. B

Yah, and it's irrelevant anyway, eh? The issue isn't whether or not the park approved the rock and then reneged. The issue is whether a citizen putting up an interpretive display at his own expense on public land should have a part of it censored, or should be prohibited from putting it up solely because one item in it reflects a particular viewpoint, expressed in a generic and nonthreatening way. Or, on da other side, the issue is not whether the government-funded museum did fund an exhibit (it did). It's whether it should have funded an exhibit where the sole "aesthetic" point of the art was to depict one religion's cherished symbols in deliberately disgusting and provocative ways. I don't mind in the least a display of the Pieta or the Torah in a public place, though I ain't Catholic or Jewish. I don't mind in the least a publicly funded lecture on Gods as myths. Plenty of those happen on public university campuses, eh? I would object to folks throwing manure on the Pieta, or covering a Torah with pig's blood. I think any decent person should. And I do object that the public university can lecture on Gods as myth, but isn't permitted to bring in a Christian, and a Muslim, and a Rabbi to lecture on God as Truth. To me, these things seem like ordinary courtesy and fairness. I'm glad we can teach such ordinary courtesy and fairness in Scouting. Beavah

Thanks, Acco. Do you apply the same #1 standard to the other examples of requirements (a bit further down in the parent thread, after Eamonn said one example wasn't sufficient)? B