Beavah

There's a bit of this culture in the troop I've noticed. One of the First Class scouts doesn't have a pack, he camps with to rubber maid boxes. SM sent me an email saying tha parents had concerns about hiking to the campsite at night. It was about 1/2 mile. Big Deal! All camping until this last outing has been car camping and the SM likes going on Saturday morning to avoid setting up in the dark. I reminded him that scouts have flashlights, batteries too. I'm going to push for Friday night camping for each campout, and to carry packs in and out on most. Yah, Scout Salute to Gonzo fer startin' the hard work of openin' this troop up to the bigger world of non-cub-scout campin'! Remember, Gonz, take it slow. Give boys and especially adults time to re-think and re-appraise and learn a bit. It really helps once there are a few hike-in successes and fun "bad weather" outings that boys and adults can point to. As for your "special case"... All of a boy's friends coming back and saying "that was great!" when the Little Prince missed an outing can help. Even better if yeh can nudge another parent or two to "accidentally" talk in front of Momma about how great the outing was for the boys. Adult "peer pressure" and the sense that their kid is being left out/left behind can be useful, but it has to come from a non-scouter parent, preferably a mom. Aside from that, I'm with the considerable wisdom that's sayin' there's very little you can do beyond that. Kids are very good at picking up on the subtle and not-so-subtle signals their parents send, and there's no way in the world you have the influence to steer a different course for 'em. Parents win every time, for good or (sometimes) for ill. Move on and provide a good program for the boys you can reach, and trust the others to the football coach and karate instructor. Beavah

The trunk of a car is not a good place to transport one. At least in some states, the trunk of a car (or the roof) is the only place you can legally transport one. See http://msucares.com/news/print/fcenews/fce02/020916.html. Beavah

Yah, I've seen lots of troops of different sizes, eh? Close as I can tell, every unit grows to the "natural size" that its adult leaders can handle. When it gets above that natural size, it doesn't matter how many boys that troop recruits, they will lose kids until the troop drops back down to its natural size. I've watched it over and over again. When I was more naive, I would try to help small troops of 12 or so grow by beating the bushes and gettin' 'em a big recruit class. By the next year, they'd be back down to 12. So I'm kinda in favor of units "capping" their membership at a level they know they're good at. That way the rest of the boys are free to fill in to other units or start new ones, but we're more likely to keep 'em in scouting. I think one natural unit size is 25-45. That's a size that allows for several patrols and a lot of activities, and even a decent high adventure patrol. The scope is still within what an SPL can handle, the SM can really know all the kids and families, and going on a campout does not require huge transport logistics. These troops start to feel "ragged" when they get to 50 or above. So if yer in that group, Oak Tree, where the SM likes to know each boy and engage that way, rather than bein' a guy who acts as manager over a cadre of ASM's that run independent programs, then yeh have to stop growin' now and put a limit on. That's a service to your adults, kids, and families, and a service to scouting. Now, there's good and bad ways to do limits. Yeh want a consistent recruiting class each year, rather than havin' "big" and "small" years. And you want friends to stay together and not to get people grumpy. Usually the first cut is to just tone down your recruiting. I've seen some units "up the cost" in terms of expected activity level or even dues, to reduce demand. Both of those generate less grief than limited spots and wait-lists. Beavah P.S. I'm actually slightly in favor of Trevorum's limit, too, though there are some fine "Big Troops" out there with adults who like to run that kind of program. Da reason is that those adults are kinda rare, and very often when the SM eventually retires, those big troops collapse fairly quickly. So it seems like at least in some ways, the limit may be for the long-term greater good. Maybe. Those big troops when they're healthy are also strong programs, so it's hard to figure which way things lie.

Yah, that seems like a good way to go, Lisa'bob. nldscout, I'm a bit perplexed, but maybe I'm not aware of something. "Charter School" as far as I know is a term used exclusively for public schools (schools ultimately controlled by a government body whose funding is primarily or entirely from state tax revenues). I know dat's the case in Lisa'bobs state, because they're close by. But to my knowledge, all Charter Schools are public schools. It's hard to keep track of everything goin' on in the several states, though. Do you know of somethin' different? It is true that charter schools can contract with a private management company to run the school (even a for-profit company, like Heritage Academies). But that's true of regular public districts, too. Chicago Public Schools could contract with Heritage Academies to run some of their schools if they wanted to, or they could contract out special education or school bus service. But they'd still be public schools, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, it's almost the end of the year, eh? Seems like that's a fine time for you as CC to be "lining up jobs for next year." First you find someone to take over (ACM, Tiger den, etc.) Then you sit down and explain that to help with the transition for the boys and the new leaders, new leaders will be "shadowing" the current leader for the rest of the year and the summer as they learn the ropes. On the side, you give the skinny to da new Tiger den leader, and ask them to do what they can to pull the year-end program together and "take the reins". Give 'em support, find 'em training. Yah, this can be done as a courteous "ease them out" thing, rather than a confrontation in most cases. If yeh have a Unit Commissioner (ask your DE who it is), they might help, too. Good luck with it! Beavah

Yessir Mr. SR540! [in harmony with my brother Beaver...] I ustah be a Beavah, and a good ol' Beavah too, But now I've finished Beavering I don't know what to do, I'm growin' old and feeble, and I can Beavah no more! So I'm goin' to work my ticket if I can, eh? Yah, Back to Gilwell, happy land, I'm goin' to work my ticket if I can!

Yah, boy Lisa'bob. Does that sound familiar! I think I've watched the same dynamic in a dozen different councils and even more districts. So if da structure is gettin' in the way, why don't yeh change it? Forget havin' separate committees for this and that. Have just one "Unit Support" committee and then break out into subcommittees as needed. That way commishes can talk to membership and to program, etc. So many times I see council's and districts locked into a dysfunctional structure because they think they "have to do it that way." Bah. Service first. Everything else is negotiable. Yah, I wouldn't wait on Pack Trainers either. Experience matters as much or more than doin' a 1-day "Train the Trainer" class. Find your best cubmasters and CC's from your best packs, and recruit them. Limited time, one "partner pack" only, no need to come to district meetings if they don't want to. A reward of free support resources from district for both their unit and their partner unit as a small incentive (a few free manuals, a small discount on cubworld, whatevah). Eamonn's got the right of it. Diversity is a good thing. Small troops, big troops, car camping troops, high adventure troops, active religious CO's, absent secular CO's. But that means we can't do "generic" support, eh? It's got to be highly tailored and creative. What the small troop with the new SM needs is very different than what the big troop with the 20-year vet is lookin' for, eh? That's why I'm always a bit amused by generic "follow the program" advice . Nuthin' worse than some one-day-of-trainin' wonder comin' in and messin' with a situation he doesn't understand. Service first. Beavah

Yah, OK, please forgive my pedantic-ness. Charter Schools are public schools (schools that are owned, operated, and funded by the state government). They just have a different management/governance structure than "traditional" geographic school districts. As public schools, charter schools are subject to exactly the same constitutional limits as any public district, and are subject to most of the same funding laws. Only the management & governance is different, eh? (this is a bit simplified, because charter school laws vary a lot between states). Can a public school/charter school be a CO for a BSA unit? "Yes" for a LFL/Exploring unit. "Maybe" for a traditional unit, but it might be subject to legal challenge on first amendment grounds. That just depends on where yeh live and what the community is like, and how belligerent someone wants to be. But because of that risk, and the good probability of losing such a challenge, the BSA has been encouragin' public school chartered units to transfer their charters to private organizations. That same rationale applies equally to charter schools. So 1) Legally, the same constitutional limits (and potential challenges) apply to charters as traditional public schools. 2) Both can choose to charter units if the BSA lets them. That's a decision by the school/district to incur some risk of a challenge. 3) Charters may be more willing to accept the risk, because they tend to be smaller communities than geographic districts, where everyone knows each other and people are philosophically "on the same page." Some of the governance/management differences also mean that it is less likely that public support really flows to the unit in any real way (for example, charters typically don't own their building, and their building is usually not funded by public bonding, so use of the building after hours might simply be a matter of permission from the private building owner, rather than a school-provided resource). That's their call, to decide how much risk they want to incur, eh? Reality is da costs are pretty low if yeh just say "oops, sorry" when you get a nasty letter, or fairly substantial if yeh opt to fight it out. 4) In general, the BSA should be equally reluctant to enter into chartering relationships with chartered schools as they are with traditional public school districts. Certainly, they should be "up front" with the charter school management about the issues. I think it should be the school's call, though. So in the end, I think Lisabob's initial response is on target, eh? The answer should probably be "no" in most cases. Just like geographic public schools, it's just as easy and less potential hassle to use a private organization (PTO?) as the charter partner, and meet at the school. Beavah

Like Brent, I heard on Atlanta radio earlier today, "scientists estimate that temperatures will be 10 deg higher by 2080", What? 2080?? scientists can't tell you what the temp will be in 7.3 days and they expect us to believe what the weather will be in 73 years? Yah, Gonzo, I own a car. I can't tell in any reliable way at all what my expenses on that car are going to be for next week. I figure they might just be gas, but then I might lose the fuel pump or hit a nail and puncture a tire. But just because I can't tell yeh what my actual expenses next week are going to be, I can be fairly accurate at telling you the cost of ownership over the expected life of the car. Even more accurate estimatin' the average costs of ownership of all the cars of that make/model. Not perfectly accurate, but much more accurate than I can tell you what the expenses are for next week. There's a difference between weather and climate, between whether it's goin' to rain on Tuesday and what the long-term average temperature is goin' to be for the year. All business plannin' and investments relies on that difference - bein' able to make reasonable long-term estimates, even though short term fluctuations are hard to predict. I agree with you and Brent, I don't like the politics around the issue. I think it gets in the way. Makes Dems crow and Republicans obfuscate. Same with lots of issues, once they enter the realm of politics and get politicized, people on both sides become stupid chest-thumpin' dolts. I like to tell kids that our job as regular citizens is not to become stupid. Ignore the politics, look at the data. And have the courage to tell even your own tribe of politicians when they're bein' dumb. Beavah

Yah, the split thing or the boy pays up front/troop reimburses later thing is most common around here. I know one troop that reimburses over the next year based on the boy participating as a leader in the troop activities & PLC meetings, which is another option. Beavah

Yah, don't forget about airshows, eh? And yeh can always organize a trip up to Oshkosh, the nation's biggest airshow and aviation fly-in. There's an Explorer post that camps on the field and does support work for that, and it's possible to hook up with them and camp in exchange for some labor. For aviation interested kids, it's outstanding. Nice museum there at da EAA headquarters, too, even if yeh can't hit the huge event. Beavah

I'll agree with "we can't ruin the earth". Things are always likely to eventually recover, in geological time. Does't help our grandkids any, though. Yah, but I'm curious there, Gonzo. Why do yeh think that man can't raise temperatures? I've seen forest clear-cuttin' that resulted in mud slides which ruined the lives of a mess of people. Dams that destroyed fisheries. Nearby, da city of Chicago reversed the flow of the Chicago river because their pollution had fouled the southern end of Lake Michigan enough to contaminate their water supply. Now that threatens the fisheries of the whole Mississippi, as big Asian catfish that got imported into our lakes by international shipping are let loose (or vice versa, I can't remember). I know lakes in New England that were killed off fish because of acid rain from smokestacks in Ohio. Why not temperature? We're not talkin' big changes, eh? Just a few degrees. Well, that's a lot, with some big effects, fer sure. But it seems like we've demonstrated a pretty good ability to mess up the local and regional environments pretty quick. Is it really that much of a stretch that 6 billion of us can mess up da global environment over a couple of centuries? I agree, we humans ain't the biggest player. The big guys may well be meteor impacts, volcanoes, solar cycles and continental drift. But don't yeh think that we could be a (smaller) player? Too much borrow-and-spend-and-deny-and-spin out there for this old conservative anyway. I'll stick with the scientists and own up as honestly as I can to the problem, and the responsibility. Even if that means I find myself in partial agreement with an self-servin' dingbat like Al Gore. After all, a busted clock gets things right twice a day . Beavah

Yah, result1. Yeh sound like yeh might be a relatively new parent in this troop? A lot of what you're talkin' about is difficulties with communication, and I reckon all of da people here can sympathize with communication failures in troops. Sometimes cub packs which are well run can be great at adult communication. Then a family moves into a troop, where there's youth leadership and a new way of doing things, and as a result the communication feels "broken." Some of that is that it takes time to get used to a very different program, where lots of communication happens directly boy-to-boy. Some is gettin' familiar with new procedures for fundraisin', and a different way of doin' advancement, and ways of delegating tasks so the Scoutmaster may not always know exactly what the ASM for new scouts or the SPL or the Patrol Leader for the Beavah Patrol is doin'. All that can feel pretty chaotic as a parent. Especially if (as it seems) you had a SM recently retire or move on, and other people are tryin' to "fill in." Summer camp fees are a good example. Most camps have two different fees, for "early" and "regular" registrants. So it's perfectly possible for a well-meaning person to read the "early" registrant figure only to realize later that they can't get things in in time, so everyone will have to pay the "regular" fee. Or perhaps they just had last year's leader's guide for the camp and didn't think to check. Many troops also tack on a small surcharge to pay for gasoline for drivers (perhaps that's the "donation" part) or incidentals for the boys, and they occasionally forget to put that in when they send out the first note. This stuff is normal. It happens all the time, because volunteers are busy people, and not always experienced, and sometimes communication takes a back seat to "the crisis of the day." Scout troops often do feel confusin' to new parents, even in troops that do a decent job communicatin'. So my advice is to relax a bit, be forgiving of your fellow volunteers' mistakes, and just give 'em a chance to do the best they can do. Sit back, take time to figure things out. Let your son have the job of communicatin' to you about what he needs or what's up with the troop. As long as he's doin' OK, it's OK, eh? Then in a bit, find one (and only one!) job you can be helpful with, to do your part. Maybe helpin' with communication to new parents, eh? Maybe volunteerin' to be treasurer in a year or so. It really will seem better as you get (more) used to it. And your fellow parents will appreciate and respect your quiet support even when they stumble. Beavah

Yah, I think yeh also have some other resources in your area - Jackson Community College has an aviation program at that airport, eh? And there's some big flight school at some town near there, where I-94 and I-69 come together. I've worked with councils settin' up aviation stuff with EAA in Oshkosh. There's a general agreement letter between the BSA and EAA that allows EAA member pilots participatin' in Young Eagles flights to bypass most of the headaches of the BSA flyin' tour permit process (which is much too cumbersome for bigger events), because the EAA is providing insurance coverage. Yeh have to "push" some less service-minded execs sometimes to look it up. And lots of EAA folks there in Kalamazoo associated with da AirZoo. Most airport administrations and flight schools will be glad to work with you. Some will even allow campin' in a corner of the airport property. Control tower tours, though, have mostly been "out" since 9/11. So MB work, orientation flights, facility tours, meetin' visits by local pilots, campin' in aircraft hangars or on the field, CAP presentations, all kinds o' things are possible. The flyin' community is pretty pro-Scoutin' eh? Most are happy to help if yeh give 'em enough notice, or hook up to overlap with another event they're doing. Your guys could even help out with one of the pancake breakfast "fly-ins" at your local airport. Beavah

Yah, lots of good answers above. So I'll take the chance to be blunt. The troop dues every week - Should that be paid regardless if the scout makes it to the meeting or not. That is completely up to your troop, and perhaps up to the PLC boys. I've seen it done both ways. Often, as Lisa'bob describes, the weekly thing just becomes such a paperwork headache that skipping is easy. Should the troop books (Troop funds) be open to view by the scouts and parents? This is completely up to your troop as well, or more properly up to your charter partner. Some troops do. Most have had bad experiences with "problem" or "nosy" parents and choose to only provide summary reports (otherwise they'd never get people to volunteer as treasurer). Some that value anonymous scholarship support for kids might keep financial data away from parents and have it be strictly a CO/finance subcommittee thing. In all cases there should be some real oversight, but it can be structured very differently, eh? My Problem is they are still talking about other fund raisers and now its the 9th of May - Working on the 5th month since the Dec fundraiser and no one has a clue how much will go to the boys. None of it should go to the boys. Not directly. That wouldn't be strictly legal or ethical. Money raised must go to the troop, to support the scouting program for all boys. Da troop may choose how to allocate some money toward outings and such with "scout accounts", but even then it has to be a bit careful. So properly speaking, your son isn't entitled to a single dime of funraising money himself. It "goes to the boys" by going to the boys' program. Overall, I think troops should be up-front before a fundraiser about how the money will be used. Just common sense and courtesy to donors and workers. ------ As a committee member, your role at this point should be to privately inquire of the CC/treasurer if there's anything amiss, and if you can do anything to help. If there has been some mis-appropriated funds, a CC/CO/treasurer probably can't tell you anything, though, since they may be pursuing an investigation or action for recovery. Sometimes you just have to trust 'em when they say "they're working on it." Yah, but if I may be so blunt, your post sounds like there's "other issues". Hard to give yeh advice about 'em without knowing them. So all we can be is general - trust your troop, take some time to figure things out before you assume wrongdoing (volunteers are volunteers, they can be slow), inquire gently and politely. Consider whether the program your boy is getting is worth your personal investment of time and treasure, and be content with that. And if yeh really feel good financial controls aren't in place, raise that respectfully with the committee and chartered partner, but not in the context of a specific fundraiser. Beavah

Beavah - marketing strategy for Greenland? Is that where the GW crowd has to fight their case now? Yeh asked a simple question, eh? "Why is Greenland named that?" I answered. Because Eric the Red was trying to attract Danish settlers to the place. At least, that's what the Danes say . Farmin' was never really successful in Greenland, and they reverted to subsistence fishing. Eventually da colony collapsed. I agree, it seems like an odd thing to bring up when talkin' about Global warmin', eh? Climate change has definitely happened in the past, and the earth has been warmer than it is now. But from what I can tell, it's never happened as fast as it's happenin' now. I suggest you look up Michael Bellesiles. While not a scientist, many supported the conclusions in his award winning book until the data (or lack of) proved him a liar. Huh? So I looked him up, eh? He was a historian who may have fudged some research about a totally different subject. I'm often a bit dense, but I don't see the connection. Beavah - who was paying for those scientist to be taking ice core samples? Were they there to investigate GW? Can't say as I know who the funders were, but typically that kind of basic research is funded by governments. I figure that's usually higher quality than private-interest funded research. Yah, I think you're right, there's always risk of unintentional bias in research, and we've certainly seen a few cases of outright fraud especially in the high-$ privately-funded research like medicine. That still doesn't stop me from listenin' to my doctor. Fact is, there's bias and fraud in business, and lots of it in da media and in government, and plenty of it in law. Seems to me the science crowd are pretty much choir boys by comparison. And at least there, fraud is career-ending, which is more than we can say for other professions . I'm a Christian, a mostly Republican but sometimes split-ticket voter, and a long time conservative. I'm not in favor of gettin' all enviro-whacky. But us old-time conservatives, unlike da neo-ones we have around these days, believe in responsibility. Ownin' up to responsibility, not tryin' to deny it or shirk it. To me, bein' responsible means payin' attention to the data and the good people workin' hard on such things, and sacrificin' to make things better when that's called for. Not playin' borrow-and-spend-and-deny-and-spin to give ourselves wealth and power in the present, at the expense of da future. (At least da liberals have the intellectual honesty to tax-and-spend, eh?) I miss huntin' on snowshoes. These days, even in da northern lake states it seems snowmobilin' in the winter is hit or miss. I would have liked to pass these along to my grandchildren. Seems that's what "conservative" should mean. Beavah

Yah, Greenland was named Greenland because da Norse leaders who were trying to promote immigration came up with a good slogan, just like da tourist departments of each of our states, eh? It was a marketing gig, not a statement about climate. I think that it's interesting that the guys who wrote those ice core studies are proponents of the Global Warming theory. That means a lot more to me than what a commentator says about their data. Far be it from me to agree with Merlyn, but he's got a point, eh? Climate systems are quite complicated overall, to be sure. No good way to predict local conditions. But dat doesn't mean that same heat in, less heat out won't make things generally warmer. It's still possible to make general statements even when yeh can't make specific ones. To kill the theory, you need real evidence that contradicts it. That means in this case you need evidence of something that will create a bigger cooling effect. Nobody's even got a decent hypothesis there, let alone evidence. Just because there's politicians blathering doesn't mean us good citizens shouldn't take the time to really figure out what's goin' on, rather than jerkin' our knees because of the messenger. Beavah

It is one thing to say, well if the SPL makes a bad choice (not that I'm even certain he did make a bad choice, mind you) then the troop just has to deal with it, but it is another if that choice directly results in boys leaving the program. Is it? Scoutmasters and other adults make wrong decisions all the time, some of which result in kids leaving the program. Yah, it's unfortunate. It's also life, eh? Trusting people, kids or adults, with leadership means accepting some mistakes and negative consequences. If an SPL came to me with this idea, I'd say, "hey great job". If there were additional information that's relevant, the I'd apologize for not having shared it. Then I would sit down with da SPL, and together we'd decide whether the new information calls for a tweak of the SPL's plan, or whether it's really a show-stopper. If the SPL agrees it's really a show-stopper, then he goes back to come up with a different plan. It's still the SPL leading and coming up with ideas. Still the SPL empowered to deal with the additional information. It's all in whether you treat the boy like an adult colleague, or like a servant. The committee members seem like the only ones who overstepped bounds here, stepping on the SM's and SPL's turf. Chances are the boys know more about boys' backgrounds and what's really necessary for "other patrols' needs" than committee members do. If there's some feedback or additional information to give, it's da SM's role, not the committee's. Beavah

The "it's just a theory" or "we want facts not consensus" bit is da game that I personally don't have patience for. It seems to me like it's just playing with definitions in order to justify a previously held political prejudice. Theories are explanations that fit all currently available facts. Scientific consensus on a theory means that the theory fits all currently available facts AND that the vast majority of people who have spent their lives studying this material agree that the theory has the best predictive power of any explanation currently available. When my dad had cancer, there was a theory that radiation was likely to be effective for his particular type of cancer. The consensus of the team of oncologists that worked with him was that radiation was the proper treatment. Can you find some folks out there who don't buy the consensus, and would have recommended treating my dad's cancer with diet or crystals or meditation? Sure. We call those "quacks." But they would say "radiation treatment is just a theory", point to cases where it didn't work, talk about how "we want facts, not consensus" and then mention that "scientists 50 years ago would have suggested major surgery instead and they were wrong", all in an effort to convince us to buy into diet and crystals. My dad did radiation, and lived happily and healthily for many years. I think when we work with kids, we should keep our personal prejudices in check and refrain from quackery. No radical left environmentalism, but also no misrepresentation of good science as "just a theory" or "consensus not fact." Just ain't Trustworthy. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I understand the blurred line between judging if a scout should get credit for his time in a POS. I don't disagree at all, but I've seen many SMs try to fire scouts because they forget that we are in this to helps scouts grow, not to build the most efficient troop in the district. Failure is inevitable, learning from it is the trick. Yah, I agree with Eagledad here, eh? One of the things I have observed, though, is that this "fire them" thing increased when the direction and perception put out by National was that anybody who had nominally held the position should "get credit" even if they did not really serve, or learn. Troops then felt obligated to "fire" kids before the time was up, so as not to be put in a position of advancing a boy who hadn't grown to the point of meriting that recognition. So once again a silly rule or perception of a rule leads us to do something that makes program worse, not better. Da same applies to the notion that "being active in your troop and patrol" means that your name appears on the roster even if you never show. This leads a good troop that cares about kids learning and growing to drop kids from the roster. In both cases, unit leaders who are responsible for kids, and CO's who are responsible for units, should be trusted with intelligent discretion rather than bein' forced into an aggressive "solution" by poor or misperceived policy. [/soapbox] Beavah

Yah, I agree that the scare tactics and the hype aren't quite an honest thing. That's just a creature of the American media and politics, eh? Media only reports on conflict and scare, not on consensus agreement and positive stuff. And politics, well, da only thing that seems to get our dear Congresscritters off their tushes seems to be hype and fear. Voters too, for that matter. 'tis a shame. I was around and readin' back in da 60s and 70s, though, and I never got the impression that scientists of any stripe really had any fear of an ice age or cooling. Certainly 'twas far from the consensus on global warming. At the time, it was just fun new research on ice age cycles. But da media did their version of hype and dumb reportin' as usual, I suppose. Same as now. I would like to see some real LNT corporate and national ethic. We should do better voluntarily, because we all do care about the environment. Problem is, I've seen responsible corporations that were good managers raided and bought out by leveraged takeovers, and turned into quick cash and environmentally irresponsible practice overnight. Hurt the environment. Hurt the workers and their families. I'm with the group. No silly token measures. A real effort at carbon-neutral energy independence, Manhattan-project style. Big research, big deployment. No fear, no hype, just leadership. Be a great gift to our kids. New industry. Sound infrastructure. Less foreign debt. No money going to villains who happen to have oil reserves under their sands. And maybe a few less storms floods, and droughts. Me, I'll take a calm, slow moving glacier over bigger hurricanes and tornadoes. Beavah

If a boy doesnt want to come to meetings and activities, is making an attendance rule the best solution to fix that? Why doesnt he want to come? Band, baseball, girls, TV, snorkeling, fast cars? If a troop program is going to compete with whatever it is a boy is doing when he skips the troop activity, the troop is going to have to offer a better deal. I agree with FScouter in principle here. Even in specifics for some boys. Boys that "fade out" may well do so because a troop isn't grabbin' and holdin' their attention in the way that it should. I just think that communicatin' expectations does play a role. All of us would love to get something for nothing, or something completely on our personal convenience/schedule/desired price. Like the ability to put Scouts on our resume, or to come to one or two things a year to hang with friends or have some fun without makin' a commitment. We'd love to do that for band and for sports teams and for da school newspaper and our girlfriends too, eh? Which is why all of those activities also come with well-communicated expectations about "being active and committed." I personally believe Scouting is important. It's a big contributor to growing fine young men. It shouldn't apologize for setting expectations in the same way that other activities like kickin' a ball around the field do. Fact is, we should apologize to kids if we don't set such expectations, because we're sending the wrong message about what's valuable, and what Loyal means. Like F says, though, that also means we gotta produce that valuable product. Beavah

Yah, I guess I'm late to the party. So let me take a step back. I think in the end, if we focus too much on specifics, we lose the goals. Dluders, in your mind, is this boy an Eagle Scout? That is to say, is he a boy that you'd be happy standing up in front of a room of other people - and especially other younger boys you're trying to mentor - and saying "This is what an Eagle is". Then joining in applauding the lad. I think that if he is, none of the other particulars matter. That's been Terry Larson's point in dealing with all the percentage stuff. Gettin' all persnickety about 48% vs. 52% attendance isn't a good thing, and one that National is trying to discourage. Don't hold up a boy who really is an Eagle over technicalities, or adult communication failures. But if he's not a boy you can genuinely hold up to the parents, CO, and especially to other boys as an example and "hero" of sorts, then yeh have an obligation not to, and to keep working with him. And if your program is promotin' and signin' off on such lads, then yeh should be about fixing that, too. Eagle isn't the spot to catch things. A Star Scout should also be a good example to younger boys. Personally, I agree with many here that National's current trend is toward giving Eagles away when asked. That's partly just fatigue from dealing with obnoxious little-league parents all the time, and partly fatigue from dealing with rules-quoting dingbats in troops and districts who hold up great kids over minutia. And partly time for some new blood in that office. Da problem is that when they try to correct the troop and district dingbats with broad "policy" statements the unintended consequence is that they also convince other well-meaning folks that they have to give away the farm rather than really help a boy grow. Still, I have seen denial for lack of participation upheld on appeal all the way to national. Not everything gets rubber-stamped in the boy's favor. But it's gotta be clear that the lack of participation was "gross" not "technical", and the documentation of adult communication with the lad and his parents must be very sound. So there's nothin' wrong with a troop having a participation rule. That's a good thing, often, to help boys and parents understand commitment expectations. I think troops should keep such things. But in the end, we all have to decide "is this boy becoming the example we want him to be?" and use our opportunities to mentor him at Star and Life as much as Eagle. Rules are only tools to help with that mentoring. Beavah

Me personally, I've been around long enough to watch it happenin'. Old glaciers I once hiked on are completely gone now, places where I used to ski on natural snow for months now primarily make snow with high-tech industrial equipment in order to survive a shorter season. Like as not, people can take a swim on the North Pole in the summer, and I know that never used to happen. No question in my mind, things are gettin' warmer, and way faster than anything I was ever taught to think of as "geological time." From what I understand from friends, the science is just plain hard. The general understanding that some gases trap heat is fine and well understood, but the interaction with oceans and currents and cloud formation and mountains and the earth's rotation and all that are pretty darn complimicated. So we understand the general rules, and we've got solid supporting general evidence, but there's a lot we just don't understand and might not even have right about the specifics. That leads to "broad scientific consensus" about the general stuff and lots of discussion and debate, with some vocal scientific skeptics about the specifics. Then it hits the media and the politicians. Left-leaners take it and make it part of their agenda, rightly reporting the consensus but not all the struggles with the details. Right-leaners and carbon-energy lobbies then have to fight the tree-huggers to protect their livelihood or their political position, and emphasize the debates on all the complications and specifics. Da result is a bunch of morons talkin' definitively about stuff that they don't understand, and confusin' everybody so they "vote" based on their politics, not on the science. So me, I tell kids what I've seen in my life, and then I try to explain how when we work to understand the world it's hard. We've got a pretty good notion that if we hook up a battery and a switch and some LED's, we'll get a light to hike by at night (even though electricity is "just a theory"). But when we dig deeper we find that understandin' what an electron is, and how it interacts with silicon channels in a diode, and the complicated physical chemistry of batteries is really pretty darn hard, and there's stuff that good people still argue and debate about. It's good to know about that stuff, and support more research. But it shouldn't stop us from makin' our best practical decision on whether to use our LED headlamps, even though we don't really understand everything. So I tell 'em Global Warming is like that, eh? We don't understand everything, and there's lots to learn because it's complicated, but that shouldn't stop us from makin' some practical decisions, even hard ones. All the better if those same decisions make us less dependent on despots and fanatics for our energy needs. But hard decisions mean costs, and shifts in labor. Less oil drillers maybe, more uranium miners and windmill makers. Payin' more for gas, maybe takin' fewer scout trips. Real hardships for some families. Issues with other kinds of pollution. Gotta try to figure out how to do that well, but that doesn't mean avoid the issue. Am I doing right by the kids? I don't know. I hope so. How 'bout the rest of you? Beavah

At da end of a great post, uz2bnowl says "PS I don't really believe the planet is baking. " This got me to wonderin' what our Scouter community is teaching our boys (and girls). Few teachers or news media have the impact that we do when we talk to boys about environmental issues sittin' in God's forests under the stars. Seems these days like this issue is being confused and obfuscated by all the politicos and pundits with their own personal agendas, so our role as "trusted adults" is even more important to kids confronted with lots of claptrap. This is as good a place as any to share ideas and learn from each other. So where are you at with Global Warming? What do you understand, what are yeh confused by, and how are you dealing with it with your kids? Beavah