Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Good heavens. But that's after their foreign associations are investigated and deemed benign. Were Abedin's? Did she have her background run through the OPM gauntlet that EVERYONE else does Yah, this is what's despicable about da Bachmann wing of the modern Republican party, eh? It for some reason thinks it's OK to slander folks in a way that can't be answered. Da details of background and security checks are quite properly not public. They're not public because they're not other people's business, and they're not public because makin' 'em public would compromise national security by allowin' foreign powers to exploit weaknesses in the person or in da background check process. So demanding that someone's security clearance investigation be revealed so as to "prove" that she isn't a foreign operative is just about as un-American as yeh can get on any number of levels. As to President Obama's "curious history in Indonesia" I just have to laugh, eh? The lad, all of 6 years old, was taken by his parents with them when they had to move. I'm sure no red-blooded American kids have ever had to do that. He enrolled in da top Catholic school in da country, and those Catholics are certainly extremist Islamic supporters. Gimme a break. This sort of stuff is a millstone around da neck of the conservative movement. McCain is quite right to condemn it in da strongest terms. Beavah

Why does the atheist issue always get dragged into this issue. I don't see the connection. Well, I reckon Merlyn does. Da connection is that atheists are just another group of folks yeh can accuse the rest of us of "hating" because we happen to think they wouldn't make da best leaders in an organization that teaches kids to pledge Duty to God. The morality of homosexuality is subject to individual interpretation. All morality is subject to individual interpretation. Jerry Sandusky hasn't expressed a lick of remorse, eh? Da thing of it is, individual interpretation can be wrong. For example, it no longer appears to be consider immoral to live with your intended for several months or a couple of years before announcing your engagement to be married. Do you know of any examples of any scout or scouter being excluded from scouting because of immoral behavior? If yeh live with your intended in a tent on a BSA campout, yeh are in violation of da coed tenting rules and can be removed from da organization. Only married couples can share tents. The mayor of Boston is fighting to not allow Chik-Fil-A in the city, because of the strict beliefs of the company--will they work to remove the BSA as well? Do yeh feel that's right, CCbyTrickery? Is it OK for da government to try to destroy the business and livelihood of a citizen because the citizen happens to disagree with those in office? Remember, Chik-fil-A is happy to sell to gays, to have gays in its store. Its only "crime" is that da owner happens to have a traditional religious perspective on morality. For that, it's OK if da government tries to destroy his business? This is where the liberal argument runs off da rails and becomes truly despicable. The BSA has never attempted to get LGBT groups de-funded. It has never brought suit against LGBT groups to try to block their access to public lands and institutions. It has never started petition drives to get LGBT-only clubs or support groups to open up their exclusive, hateful, bigoted membership policies. The BSA, despite your implication, has never taken a stand either for or against gay marriage. All they have asked for is the right to quietly express their own viewpoint in terms of their private membership, preferably without harassment or what so many liberals in other contexts would call "bullying." At the point when yeh are willing to conflate that simple request to be left alone with bigotry and hatred, at the point when yeh want da State to take away folks' livelihood because of their religious beliefs, I reckon da import of the slippery slope argument is pretty obvious. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... We've moved from da New York Times to the Washington Post now? Ho hum. I think we've been round and round this dance a few dozen times, eh? Just curious, howarthe, what your feeling is on da atheist issue? When we give up "morally straight", should we also delete "Duty to God?" I know some folks who won't let their sons join the BSA because of its nationalistic / militaristic views. Should we also be more inclusive by deletin' "Duty to Country"? Some folks view oaths and flag worship as bein' "wrong". Do we drop da Pledge of Allegiance? Da BSA now lives in a nation with an epidemic of youth obesity, and yet its activities and required badge work ask for a level of fitness and improvement in fitness. Do we drop "physically strong" so as to be more inclusive of the obese? And that leaves out da Big One, eh? Do we admit girls, and wipe out GSUSA? In short, I wonder if "inclusiveness" trumps all other virtues and practicalities? Is it OK to make this change knowin' that not many gay leaders are goin' to join, but lots of traditional-values families will leave? A rough guess would be a third to a half of da membership, dependin' on da actions of the major partners. Are yeh ready to close half of the BSA camps in the nation? There are some things, like slavery and racial apartheid, that are absolutes. But if we're honest, they are few. Not every issue can be cast in those terms. And even for slavery and racial apartheid, being "right" does not justify all tactics, eh? Some tactics are still foolish, or even morally repugnant. Perhaps, just maybe, the end doesn't justify the means all the time, eh? Viewin' yourself as "right" isn't always enough. And perhaps, just maybe, millenia of moral teaching around the world might be more sound than this decade's fad among a few well-off westerners. A small touch of humility before we assume that history is always goin' to trend da way we think? Just a thought. Beavah

What happens if you tell a kid to do push-ups and he doesn't do it? What would be the next step? What happens if yeh tell a kid to do the dishes and he doesn't? What happens if yeh "talk to" a lad and he ignores you? I reckon da problem is the same no matter what consequence yeh choose. If it doesn't work, yeh try a different consequence. B

Yah, Sentinel947, welcome to da forums! My role around here often is to pull things back toward the middle, or just play devil's advocate. Some, however, would say that despite my cute, furry name my role is just to be annoyin'. In that spirit, then, let me ask: Why do yeh think that doin' pushups will "cause resentment", but givin' a lad a "talking to" (or other form of consequence) won't cause resentment? I know plenty of lads (and even more young ladies) who bore resentments for what they felt was an unfair "talking to" for years, and plenty of lads made to do push ups who bore no resentment at all. I think you're foolin' yourself. Just as I think fred8033 is foolin' himself if he feels that makin' a boy do the dishes is goin' to magically be "constructive". It's "constructive" in his family, because within his family there's a much different and longer term relationship in play, eh? Without that relationship, it's just some [bleep] of an adult makin' a boy do a chore because da [bleep] [bleep] of an adult is on a power trip and is too lazy to do da chore by herself. Beavah

You're welcome, Robbin. He just wants something down to follow in the future until he can get the respect level to where it should be, between the scouts and the Adult scouters. Tell him that we do not behave well toward our fellow scouts because there is something written down. That would be a bad lesson to teach. We behave well toward our fellow scouts because that is the right thing to do. Teaching kids about doin' the right thing requires the adults to show great courage. It demands that we talk about right and wrong, and demonstrate right, and insist on right, without anything being written down. Without backup. Without the pretense of law or "policy" or a "code" to hide behind. As a Scoutmaster, yeh stand up and do what's right and insist on what's proper because yeh are a man of conviction and courage. You do it no matter what is written down. Yeh do it because Honor demands it, and the Scout Oath compels it. That's the example of bein' a man that the boys need to see, because that example, and only that example is what really prevents bullying and other bad behavior. No nonsense written in some code somewhere will ever succeed where courage and honor fail. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... A group of 5 people pour accelerant on a man and set him on fire because they think he's homeless? Homelessness merits being burned alive? That is so very hard to fathom. Please, God, let us do our job in Scoutin' so that we raise young men (and women) to view people have less than they do with compassion and care, and to consider those who dress differently as potential friends, rather than potential victims. God bless the good folks of Gettysburg who stepped up to help the sojourner in his time of need. It's worth rememberin' that Sodom and Gemorrah were not in the end destroyed for their sexual practices. The were condemned by God for their lack of care and hospitality to the strangers in their midst. Beavah

Beavah is dead wrong on this one.... You need to be electro-shocked out of your current practice of sending out letters. Yah, hmmmm... Of course, as Mrs. Beavah would say, I'm usually dead wrong about everything. I'm just one fellah expressin' one opinion. In my opinion, though, there aren't really too many things that require electro-shock therapy. I reckon we can save that for folks who cover up Jerry Sandusky type behavior. It's probably a bit over the top to resort to electro-shock over requestin' a few congratulatory letters. What SMT224 describes is da norm for about 90% of da troops out there, so we'd be shockin' an awful lot of scouters. It's the Eagle Scout's COH, not the troop's. Nope, it's the troop's court of honor for the Eagle Scout. If yeh go back and read things like da SM Handbook and the Troop Committee Handbook and such, you'll find that the responsibility for Courts of honor belongs to the Troop Committee. So to borrow da school analogy, the diploma is approved by the School Board, and presented at a high school graduation, where the graduate and his family are guests of honor. Then the family might have a party. The Eagle Scout award is approved by national, presented at a troop court of honor, where the Eagle and his family are guests of honor. Then, if they want, da family can have a (separate) party. Now, the troop court of honor can certainly be planned by the PLC and boys in the troop, and personally I think it should be. It also should take into account reasonable requests by the Eagle or his family. But I reckon a boy planning his own award ceremony is a bit weird, eh? That sort of thing would be considered a bit gauche and self-centered for any other award. Beavah

I am pretty sure you know the difference between a BOR that is a bit more formal and a job interview. Yah, sure, I do. But what I know ain't particularly relevant, eh? . Da issue is the perception of the boy and the adults in his unit. I'm not advocatin' for these mock review things. I think they're silly. I'm just sayin' that they're a natural response. When yeh have a hurdle and da focus is on da hurdle, the natural response of many if not most folks is to teach to the hurdle. Have a test, teach to the test. Have a formal BOR, teach to the formal BOR by doin' a mock one in advance. Lots of folks approach MB and advancement requirements the same way, eh? Have a list of requirements, teach to da requirements. I don't think yeh can fight people's natural responses, eh? That's a losing battle. I think if we're not getting the responses we want, we have to change our approach. Too much teaching to da requirements? Stop emphasizing the requirements and emphasize proficiency in the skills. Too much BOR-as-interview? Stop emphasizing da BOR as a big formal thing with a set time appointment with a bunch of strangers where yeh bring your letters of reference, your resume, and your statement of philosophy. . That's a lot easier than tryin' to tell folks not to treat it like a job interview when it looks to them exactly like a job interview. Beavah

Yah, bnelon44, whatever. You sayin' it doesn't mean that's the reality on the ground, eh? In the previous thread, most of the respondents said they liked district-level EBORs because they were more formal, felt more serious (like a job interview ), felt like a bigger hurdle to the scout, etc. I think you did as well, eh? When yeh set things up like that, the natural response from da unit is to make sure their lads are well prepared for a more formal, more serious, bigger hurdle! That's why of da two, I lean toward the unit-level BOR, where it stays more of a friendly capstone conversation between a young man and folks who know him and have invested a lot in him. It doesn't have that "job interview" feel of havin' a limited amount of time to present yourself to strangers in the hope of gettin' a new position. Beavah

Yah, funscout, that old MB FAQ has been superseded by the new Guide to Advancement, eh? So that old (and mostly unintelligible) 3-point test is now defunct. Units can set their own expectations for Active in terms of advancement, so long as they are clearly communicated. Active=registered is not the BSA's position any longer. "It is appropriate for units to set reasonable expectations for attendance and participation. Then it is simple: Those who meet them are active. (Guide to Advancement) Of course, this applies to advancement only, eh? The unit is still completely free to set its own expectations for activity in terms of whether or not to continue a boy's registration, and to drop boys' registration for not meetin' the expectation. That's more what Robbin is talkin' about. They want to set expectations for membership, not just for advancement. Again, though, I agree with fred8033. It's counterproductive to tackle this head on with a policy stick. Instead, yeh up the fun, activity, and challenge of the program and then set expectations based on that fun, activity, and challenge. Want to come on da whitewater raft trip? Yeh have to have come to the swim nights and the flatwater canoeing and the whitewater prep day. It's a safety issue. Says so right there in Safety Afloat. Want to come on da cool backpacking and climbing trip? Yeh have to have been to 3 out of 4 of the climbing prep meetings and the 2 orienteering day trips and the meetings on backpack packing. Want to get the 2nd class hike requirement done or the Tenderfoot gear and packing requirement signed off? Well, your opportunity was the backpackin' trip. So sorry yeh missed it. There will be another one in three months, and if yeh meet da participation and prep expectations for it, then maybe you'll get signed off then. Beavah

Whitewater raft trips are fun, not stressful. I think just about every real scout out there would much rather do a whitewater raft trip than a BOR! You don't fix a broken district EBOR by prepping the Scout to face an inquisition. Yah, sure yeh do, because that's usually da only option that's available to the unit, or it's easier than tryin' to get their COR to wage an uphill war against da current district leadership. Very few units and CORs have the knowledge and commitment to be able to tackle problematic district leadership. These things can be self-fulfilling over time, eh? Each negative report from a scout causes a stronger, more pro-active unit to add a feature to its mock BOR, so those things keep growin'. Then yeh get folks from that stronger unit on the district, and they start expectin' that all Eagle candidates should be present themselves in da same "polished" way that the boys from their troop do. Which leads to more mock reviews. It's not that uncommon a cycle. Beavah

Yah, Robbin, hiya! Welcome to da forums, and thanks for bein' supportive of your husband's volunteering for Scouting. In terms of "Codes of Conduct", I think most experienced Scouters would be somewhere between mildly and firmly opposed to 'em. In Scouting, we have a code of conduct already, eh? It's called the Scout Oath and Law. That's usually plenty. When yeh get down into tryin' to define this, that, and the other thing all yeh usually do is set yourself up for problems. Your husband (with your help!) should work to think about how he can frame whatever message about conduct he needs to convey in terms of the Oath and Law. That has the added benefit of makin' conduct somethin' that you are asking boys to rise to, rather than somethin' that yeh punish boys for. As far as defining "Active" goes, the BSA does allow and encourage that, both for rank advancement at the higher ranks and for continued membership. To my mind, it's really just a courtesy thing, eh? If your husband is giving his time for free and has to be there for most of the events, then I reckon it's OK to expect the boys to be there for most of the events, just as a matter of courtesy. Families who want an occasional drop-in activity can pay full fare for that from some commercial outfitter. What yeh describe as the boys' position is pretty typical. The youth want their fellows to be there. The youth leaders especially feel taken advantage of when they work hard and people blow them off. What the boys propose is substantially less a requirement than any other youth activity for their age group. What yeh describe as da parents' response is also pretty typical, eh? Here's the thing, though. Yeh just do it anyway. It will make your program stronger. You'll lose a few, but you'll also gain some as it helps your program improve. In a couple years, it will be a normal expectation and the griping will go away. Now, there are smart ways and dumb ways to "just do it". Da dumb way is to just shove percentages at people. The smart way is to offer more advanced opportunities to boys who are frequent participants, more advancement, stuff that parents want to see in their kids. Parents these days are competitive, eh? If Billy is gettin' to do more than their Johnny, they're goin' to start makin' sure Johnny shows up. At the same time, yeh just drop low-attending boys from your roster. Quietly, gently, and firmly, one at a time. No more notices of events or phonecalls. If they show up for their one event per year, yeh let 'em know that you're sorry, but they're no longer registered. You'd be happy to have 'em back if they fill out a new application and meet for a Scoutmaster conference and a parent conference, where yeh get to welcome 'em back as well as lay out the expectations. Of course, the boys can do the same thing, eh? The PLC might decide that PLs aren't goin' to buy food for guys who don't meet their attendance expectations. They can bring their own food and cook it themselves, and schedule their own hikes. If yeh don't support the team, the team doesn't need to support you. In other words, try to accomplish what you're doin' gently and personally, rather than ramming policies and codes of conduct through the committee. It'll take yeh 3-6 years to "unbreak" your troop, because some things have to wait until new boys with new expectations replace old boys and their parents. Take the long view. But you're headed in da right direction. Beavah

Yah, I reckon this gets back to da previous thread on unit EBORs vs. district EBORs. I've never seen an area that uses unit level EBORs to do "mock" reviews. They come up because da units feel an obligation to prepare boys for district EBORs, which are somethin' new that a boy has never experienced before. Just like yeh wouldn't send a lad down a whitewater river with no experience, yeh wouldn't send 'em into a new situation without some prep. Often units start doin' this after one or more of their kids had a less-than-great experience with a district EBOR that ran a bit off the rails. That happens often enough, if only because da district folks don't know the personality of the boy and sometimes are populated by "personalities." And because some lads are shy/nervous. I'm not fond of da practice, but to my mind it's an ordinary and natural response to da district EBOR setup. Beavah

Yah, well. Actually, it's the troop's court of honor, not the boy's. Just like it's the high school's graduation, not the boy's. The lad and his family are free to have any kind of reception at their house after the event, with whatever guests they want, but da COH itself belongs to the troop, not to the guest of honor and his family. SMT224, I reckon a lad is just havin' some fun. Perhaps even yankin' your chain. I've come to find I'm sort of a rare bird in da Scoutin' adult community, in that I really like young fellows like that. Lots of folks don't. So me, I reckon I'd advise yeh to take a step back from the cliff and just smile and be old and wise on this. It ain't one of the things that's worth chargin' off on a high horse about. Send out the letters, eh? I'd do it just out of curiosity about what responses I'd get. Yeh might be very pleasantly surprised. And it's good for folks out there to know that some of da people who follow 'em are scouts. Helps 'em to see that scouting is "us" - part of the community - rather than "them", part of a cultural/political party. No matter what da responses are, though, it will be somethin' that you and the young man can laugh about for many, many years. Don't waste such a wonderful gift from a bright young fellow. Have some fun with it. If it were me, I'd use his list to generate some "over the top" additions of my own and send to those additional folks as well. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... So not bein' a long-timer, there's somethin' that yeh need to be aware of in terms of BSA council professionals. While they are generally good and well-meaning folks, their position is an ill-defined and almost impossible one. In particular, they get evaluated based on stuff that they really don't have much control over - FOS contributions, numbers of kids, and numbers of units. For their own professional advancement, they also have to be mobile, movin' up in positions steadily, which typically means movin' to a new council. Da result is that the best way for 'em to "play the game" is to start new units even when not everything is in place to make a new unit successful. It ups their "numbers" for the year, and often by the time da new unit fails (or cannibalizes a nearby unit), they have moved on. Da worst way to play the game, but one that is often chosen, is to play games to artificially inflate the numbers of kids or troops "on paper." So I think yeh need to make your own evaluation in terms of the viability of two units in your area, and the viability of a start-up troop. One pack of 35 boys typically means a Webelos 2 den of 4-5 in a good year. Average for crossovers even when your recruitin' is solid is typically 60% or so, especially as some "distance" develops with da pack. With da usual first year retention issues, that makes for 2 boys per year. That's not enough. In most areas, there are 2-3 packs for every troop, and to build a healthy unit yeh need to be recruitin' from that many. Sad to say it, but readin' between the lines my guess would be that startin' a new troop will kill your current troop, and perhaps kill both. Yeh certainly haven't presented anything to suggest that your area can support both. I also think yeh need to understand how much harder it is to be SM of a new troop vs. SM of a startup troop. Those are just very different jobs. Wracking my brain, I can't think of too many startup troops that have succeeded without the SM and a few others havin' experience in the roles previously. There's just a lot of stuff in place already in an existing troop, eh? A committee that has worked together, some years of history providin' norms and expectations, a former SM around to offer perspective or support. Startup troops are different. There's a lot less structure in place and a lot more "storming". Yeh need to expect some differences in vision, some degree of conflict, a lot more emotional energy on your part. About 3 times the work for the first year, and double the work for the next two. Now I'm not meanin' to be too discouragin' here. Troops by and large live or die by leaders of the right sort, who enjoy the outdoors and enjoy kids and work well with other adults and are willin' to give a big chunk of their lives to other people's children. Yeh might be able to make a go of it, in the end. But yeh need to go into that with eyes wide open, and yeh need to be thoughtful about da impact on all the boys in both troops. As for the other bit, all I can do is take yeh at your word, eh? But let the old furry fellah offer one slight additional caution. We guys aren't always the best at figurin' out what's goin' on in the heads of our partners from da Venus planet, eh? Can't tell yeh how many divorces I've seen where the guy says "I thought we were doin' great" and the woman says "I've felt neglected for years and he just doesn't get it." Take it from me, mate. When the wife is sayin' yeh need to be closer, what she's really sayin' is she needs more of you. Shortenin' a drive but doublin' your scoutin' commitment is probably not goin' to be the answer. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... From what you're sayin', bigbovine, your principal reason for startin' a new troop is personal family stuff. To be closer to home, to co-locate with the pack. Those reasons aren't good enough. There have to be real reasons in the local area that makes startin' a new troop there the best choice for all of the boys in the area, especially the current scouts. I'm not seein' that in what yeh post. In order to be successful startin' a new troop, a whole mess of things have to be in place. Da core of a real troop committee. A couple of ASMs. Solid plans for initial gear / funding. A supportive CO. An experienced and talented person as SM, clear recruitment/feeder lines that don't cannibalize another troop. From what you're describin', your preparation isn't good enough. I know that's not what yeh perhaps want to hear, but from where I'm sittin' as a fellow who has been involved in startin' a bunch of troops and who has watched a bunch of troops struggle and fail, goin' with a new unit is about da worst choice available to yeh, and probably the worst choice for scouting in your area. Go with the SM position, where there are resources and support in place. Build that troop up, do more with youth leadership, make it a strong program. At the point when that troop has too many kids, then think about whether it's time to split and create a second strong troop. By then, you'll have the experience as a SM to do that, and hopefully enough committee folks to make it work. Now, givin' a young fellow like yourself advice from afar is a risky and probably foolish business, but take this as a kindness from a fellow who has been there. Your wife firin' shots across the bow is somethin' that yeh take as seriously as the Coast Guard firin' a 50-caliber across your bow when you're in a 26 foot sloop. Yeh heave to, eh? If yeh have at least 3 boys in da troop and are takin' on the SM job, it's time to give up all of your work with the pack. Cold turkey, no choice. Cub Scouting is now entirely in your past. Let your wife do the pack committee if yeh still have boys there. If not, part as friends. You are not to be involved in OA. Be supportive of your boys, but give 'em some space. They are members of Scouting's Society of Honored Campers. They can arrange their own transportation or carpools without you holdin' their hand. Take that time when they are away to do somethin' special and wonderful with your wife. Marriage requires a lifetime of courtship. For that reason, two nights per week is your limit. Bein' a good Scoutmaster, or a good dad, means quality, not necessarily quantity. Leave 'em room for friends and other adults to Associate with on nights that you have off, and you'll like the results a lot more in the long run. Beavah

Yah, I'm probably silly, but I'd always intervene in a roadside fight. Just somethin' yeh do. If that's my end, so be it, at least I didn't walk away. Only had it happen once, intervening in an attempted rape of a woman by a stranger. On the scout side, I reckon it's do-unto-other-leaders as yeh would have done unto you. Mostly, rather than addressing the boys directly, I just alert the SM or youth leader. Quiet-like, on the side. Lots of times I've seen adult scouters stick their noses in when they really didn't know what they were talkin' about, or didn't really know the skills of the youth in question, or hadn't gotten enough coffee that mornin' and were making mountains out of molehills. That can be awkward, because we put a fellow scouter in da position of havin' to back up a fellow adult when the adult isn't being the best judge or example. So until it reaches da level of the roadside fight, it's easier to be polite and work with da youth and adult leaders, rather than over 'em. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Two options, ScoutFish 1) Spray da outside uppers of your socks with permethrin. Permethrin is a semi-permanent insect repellent for clothing. Spray it on once, let dry, stays for about 20 washes or so, keeps da bugs from biting through clothing. For socks, though, keep it on the outside and uppers (outside of the boot) only, because the stuff will irritate your skin. 2) Wear gaiters. B

Yah, havin' taken scouts to hospitals on international trips I have to admit that packsaddle is right, eh? By and large the experience is an order of magnitude easier and more pleasant than anywhere in the U.S., with dramatically lower costs (if any). And there are no real ER waits like there are in urban U.S. areas, largely because folks there don't need to use the ER for ordinary medical care for da uninsured. Just don't expect to get that coronary angioplasty, hip replacement, or laproscopic knee ligament re-build. B

Yah, hmmmm.... I reckon "struggle session" is just a few parsecs over the top, Callooh Callay. I have a dream that one day we can have a discussion about a kid's youth program without resorting to accusin' each other of bullying, abuse, hazing, torture, reckless endangerment, Maoist fanaticism or crimes against humanity. Yes, I have a dream!

Yah, I too am not fond of singing. I am, however, fond of balance. I don't think just pickin' up after kids is all that Helpful. Helping other people at all times does not always mean doin' things for them. Particularly young fellows who are still learning. The "drop in the bucket" thing goes the other way, too, eh? Pick up this thing for them, pick up that thing for them, help 'em with this... Pretty soon, we have threads about 11-year-olds who can't tie their own shoes, because everyone has been so Helpful and Friendly. Oh, wait, we did just have a thread about lads who can't tie their own shoes. A lot of teaching kids is about accelerating learning artificially. Children eventually would learn lessons from life. Over time, losing lots of stuff that nobody else happened to pick up for them is it's own lesson. But doin' it that way is a slow and muddled process. So instead, we adults do artificial things to 'em to help 'em learn important lessons faster. We make 'em go to school. We make 'em take tests (when was the last time most of us took a test?). We create artificial consequences (goin' to bed without supper, "time outs", whatever) to call attention to their behavior. Nobody sends adults to bed without supper. All of those things - creating an artificial world for kids where the feedback is more rapid and direct than it would ordinarily be in real life - is how we are helpful to kids. It helps 'em learn lessons and develop good habits more quickly. To my mind, singing is just an attempt to do that. So is TwoCubDad's notion of lecturing 'em / "having a discussion". The lecture will work for some kids, but not others. Depends on how responsible the lad is to begin with, what the parents are like, and how good da scouter's relationship is with the boy. Personally, I'm not hugely fond of "talks" for this kind of simple behavior stuff. I think the boys learn better with more ordinary consequences, and I like to save my "talks" for other things. My problem with da singing thing is that it's usually too remote from da behavior to be good feedback, and that it's too big a consequence for shy kids and too little a consequence for the jokers. So it isn't particularly helpful in any way. But I imagine some units make it work for some boys. A better consequence to my mind is that if I return an item, that boy has to be the last one out of camp for the next two times, so that he "sweeps" camp for things that other people have forgotten. It's a natural "give back to the group" sort of consequence which also helps him develop the habit of lookin' around for gear before leavin'. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... I confess I'm just confused by da last page or three. Most of yeh probably think that's not unusual. Da issues to me don't have much to do with "right" or "privilege". The fundamental question I think is "what is common infrastructure to which we all agree to contribute?" If yeh live in an urban area, then there is a lot of common infrastructure. Water and sewer service, for example. Without common water and sewer service, urban areas would collapse in disease and epidemics. Paying into the common water and sewer system is expected. Yeh may want to avoid "being required to purchase water and sewer service by the guvmint", but when yeh start dumpin' your chamberpot in the street below your apartment, your personal "freedom" to avoid purchasing sewer service is goin' to get trampled by your neighbors' desire to not step in feces on the street or be exposed to disease risk. Your neighbors can do that civilly by regulation and legal mandates and law enforcement, or they can do it just by beatin' the crap out of you or setting fire to your apartment so yeh move away. We mostly prefer da former. That's where da ultra-libertarian notions fall apart, eh? Now, if yeh live in a rural area, yeh might be off-grid as far as water and sewer service. Yeh have your own well, and yeh are responsible for your own septic system. Still, yeh are likely required to install and maintain an appropriate septic field (yet another "forced to buy broccoli" moment), because your neighbors expect that yeh won't contaminate the common aquifer that their well water comes from with your feces. Again, your neighbors through the government do that civilly by regulation and law enforcement, because that's preferred to showin' up with pitchforks at 2am and makin' yeh eat the feces you've been dumpin'. And again, da ultra-libertarian notions fall apart. "Freedom" curtailed by da guvmint. Yeh can of course live in remote areas where perhaps da population density is so low that yeh can use an outhouse or flush your toilet into da stream. That's still sort of a choice, at least until other folks want to live there too. In that case, though, yeh either have a subsistence economy or yeh are dependent for economic aid from all those manufacturing cities with their forced-to-pay-for sewage systems. We see that in rural electrification, eh? There is no good business reason to send electricity, internet, or phone service to rural areas. Da capital and maintenance cost of doin' so vastly exceeds the profits which are possible. Same with roads in rural areas. So if yeh want to live in low-tax, low-service areas, yeh depend on a subsidy from the folks payin' electrical and telecommunications taxes in the cities. That's one of da reasons why rural "red" states are net recipients of federal money, eh? Da question for the nation is therefore not really one of "liberty" or all that nonsense. It's just a question of what constitutes common infrastructure. Common infrastructure, whether it's sewage service or telecommunication, is somethin' that we feel is important enough that we all pay into it because we feel it's our patriotic duty as Americans. People who don't pay or try to avoid payin' we feel are cheats, or worse, and we're perfectly happy to have 'em arrested because if da police didn't handle it we'd smack 'em up side the head ourselves. Some of that common infrastructure like roads and sewer service we do as "single payer", government-run programs. Some of that common infrastructure, like electricity and telecommunications we do as regulated and tax-supported private services with perhaps government options. So in health care, da question is first whether health care is common infrastructure. Is it somethin' that all or mostly all folks need? Is it somethin' where folks who exercise "liberty" to opt out put their neighbors at risk? I think da answer is clearly yes, that at least some baseline health care is common infrastructure. Like not havin' sewers, lots of people not havin' health care is a genuine epidemic and disease risk for the rest of us. We've seen that in da resurgence of tuberculosis in urban areas. If my kids get resistant TB because yeh decided your kids didn't need health care, that's just like you dumpin' your feces in the street. If it isn't handled by da law and regulation, then folks are goin' to handle it more aggressively in person. Similarly, just like rural electrification and roads, health care is somethin' that we also feel a patriotic duty toward. We agreed to taxes to provide electricity and telecommunications to rural Americans because we just felt those were things that all Americans should have, even if they couldn't afford the real cost themselves. In the same way, we believe it's unAmerican to turn injured people away from Emergency Rooms, and we don't like da notion that our neighbor can't take a higher-paying job because his son's accident in Boy Scouting is a "pre-existing condition" that would be excluded from his new employer's coverage. So then da only real question is whether baseline health care coverage is better as a single-payer system like sewer service, or better as a highly regulated and tax-supported multi-provider system like electric or telecommunications service. That's just a policy debate, eh? It shouldn't get as heated as it is. And da proper answer to it is probably whichever mechanism is more economically efficient rather than which is ideologically preferred. I'm not really sure what da answer is. I expect that the ideal is that basic, baseline coverage should be single-payer. That gets yeh all preventive medicine, acute care, pediatric care, injury treatment while yeh are a workin' (or at least job-seekin') member of society, and palliative care when yeh are retired. Beyond that, if yeh want coverage for aggressive end-of-life care, drug support for da conditions of old age and lifestyle choices, expensive treatments like joint replacements and cancer therapies and the like, then yeh need to purchase and maintain your own insurance. That insurance should be a regulated market, so that it's portable between employers without undue penalties for pre-existing conditions, and so that there's some consolidation of paperwork. Honestly, though, I'm not sure of all that, eh? I'd love there to be a lively investigation and debate between responsible adults who really know a lot more than I do in the design of such a system. That, to date, has been missing. Beavah

Yah, interestin'. Folks whose councils do unit-level EBORs prefer them, and folks with councils who do district-level EBORs mostly prefer those. My, we're a conservative lot! Moosetracker, to answer your question da option has been available for a long time. Many decades. NJCubScouter's hybrid is a weird one and plays a bit fast and loose, but if it works, great. Unit-level EBORs do tend to be different / bigger / a touch more formal than the usual T-L BORs done by the unit. Separate location, not at a meeting, district rep., different cast of characters with more community and senior scouter representation rather than just a couple of parents. The district reps are typically someone from the district advancement committee assigned by da chair of that committee, not a person-found-on-street. Dependin' on the unit's character and approach, eh? But you're right, yeh wouldn't see posterboards and powerpoints and such. To my mind, that's a bonus. I'm not sure posterboards and powerpoints really have a place. More to the point, yeh get a fair bit of friction when the district EBORs (often old-boys-club fellows) have different expectations than then boy is used to at the unit. So if a unit prefers more of a relaxed family-feel and the district has a bunch of hard-cases who are expecting a professional powerpoint, that becomes a problem that can be unfair for a boy. That's also particularly true for lads who have struggled; unit folks will have a sense for how far the boy has come, but a district hard-case might only see a boy who is a bit tentative. That in turn requires a savvy SM to have a chat with the board members in advance, and not all newer SMs know to do that nor are all boards receptive to it. So from a council volunteer's perspective, district-level EBORs mean yeh have to fight a few more fires, deal with more ruffled feathers, and cope down the road with some ill-will that gets generated. Particularly when district advancement teams don't always do the best job of communicatin'. Da biggest issue to my mind is that yeh don't get as much out of the district EBOR besides the hoop-jumped feel yeh describe, and that hoop-jumped feel is still there at most unit EBORs. I suppose it also depends on whether your unit has weakened things by creatin' a "rubber stamp" approach to regular unit BORs as well. Beavah

Isn't "Zero Tolerance" Very much like some of us insisting that because something is written down someplace that we have to stick to it. With no exemptions? Yah, that's the attitude. Da thing of it is, most of the state laws I'm aware of do have clauses which allow school administrators to exercise a degree of discretion. So if da "professional" educators actually took the time to understand da law and regulations, and cared about the legislative intent / goals, we wouldn't have da sort of silliness that fred8033 quite correctly points out is goin' on all over the place. Sounds like the attitude we sometimes get into with BSA "rules". Of course, zero tolerance laws caught on as a knee-jerk response to school shootings (which would not have been prevented by the laws), and because of a few isolated cases where school administrators didn't respond appropriately to a true danger. Yeh get some school administrators who don't think they can respond like adult professionals to kids' behavior unless they have a law to hide behind. My solution would be to fire those folks. Yeh don't use laws to address lack of professionalism, yeh use personnel evaluations and employment actions. I'd hope that some of these community school boards would take the time to read da law, understand that their administrators really do have some discretion, and then use personnel evaluations and employment actions when their employees embarrass them and their community by expelling a lad with his boxcutter from work locked in his car. Especially when the baseball team is allowed to keep their bats, eh? And a bat is a much more effective and deadly weapon than a box cutter. Beavah