Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... I reckon the tone of the author is a bit too harsh. I think da risk of negatively-engaged staff is a risk for every organization, eh? They can do a lot of harm. Mostly, they need to be shifted to an area where they can better use their current talents to re-engage positively. I think most organizations consist of a majority of passively engaged folks who are mostly drag, or at best low-grade help. This is the set that keeps some of da negatively-engaged folks around, because they perceive (correctly) they can't hand things off to these folks. Da question I think matters the most is how many positively engaged folks yeh have, eh? These are the people that drive things, and they're really the ones yeh need to focus on and encourage. Beavah

From What I gather, he's been the force to try things like ATVs and jet skis as experimental programs. Yah, Eagle92, which Wayne are yeh talkin' about? That sounds more hopeful to me. My impression of Wayne Brock is the same as JMHawkins' analysis above. That's not necessarily a bad thing from a corporate perspective, eh? Mazzuca did really create a lot of internal shakeup that probably needs a stay-the-course caretaker to allow to settle. Problem has just been that not much of that has as yet had much positive effect on program in the field eh? Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... That video as close as I can tell shows two complete technology nitwits. Nuthin' but a bunch of buzzwords and vapor. I particularly didn't care for da way the CIO fellow poo-pooed the people who actually do the work. That's not good management or good scoutin'. And I reckon it explains why despite well nigh 15 years of complainin' about this stuff, we still have all da problems smalltroopSM describes. B

Yah, just readin' this thread is kind of depressing, eh? What have we turned Eagle into???? How long is that blasted workbook and ancillary documentation goin' to get? A boy can get a full-ride scholarship, a job, an automobile, almost anything up to a house with less paperwork. There should be a universal test on all BSA paperwork. How does this specific form advance our mission and goals? If a jury of 12 scouters doesn't agree unanimously that the form, restriction, or guidance advances our mission in positive ways and there's no better way to do so, then da thing gets dropped. Fund raisin' apps should be dropped. If we can't get it together to approve a project and its fundraisin' at the same time, that's our problem, not the boy's. Beavah

Yah, packsaddle, an unusually shallow response for yeh, mate. Context is everything, eh? So yeh have to take some time to look at context. In the period you're talkin' about, there was a protracted world war goin' on between Islam and Christendom, and in particular between the nascent Ottoman Empire and da Byzantine Orthodox Christians of the east. In fact, the papal bull your friend talked about was issued right around the time of the siege and fall of Constantinople. Slavery by conquest was common practice worldwide except in Catholic / Christian lands, and the Ottomans certainly enslaved quite a number of Christians. So what yeh read in those documents are indicative of the times, and not unreasonable in context. What is more interestin', though, is that period aside, both before and shortly after Christendom largely repudiated slavery. Da notable exception, of course, was Portugal, but as one character in the old film "The Mission" said quite eloquently, "In fact, Portugal is insanely hostile to the Church". Close as I can see, takin' things in context and in balance, Christendom as a whole and da Catholic folks before the Reformation did quite well, and in many ways were countercultural. In the end, they have also prevailed on the matter of slavery. That's quite a legacy by itself, even if Christian religion had achieved nothin' else. Beavah

Yah, packsaddle, not sure what question you're talkin' about. The last was my first post in this thread, eh? I have a friend, a Jesuit canon lawyer who I've worked with on occasion. We have a standin' lunch once a month just because I love arguin' with the fellow. Catholics are funny critters, and I confess I've even pranked him on occasion. He once told me a tale about a deaf priest who used to do masses for deaf folks in his area. One time he got transferred or was visiting a different part of the country, and did a mass. Now, I never knew this, but apparently there are "accents" in American Sign Language, and sometimes signs have different meanings in different parts of da country. So in his sermon, the fellow was signing away, and part way through the whole congregation's attitude changed and became very hostile. A few walked out, and at the end, most left in a huff. It turns out that the sign for "virgin" as in "Virgin Mary" where this priest was from actually had a colloquial meaning of "woman of ill repute" in the area he was doin' the service. So he had been talkin' about Mary being a prostitute for most of his sermon. In that way, there can always be a difference in meanin' between what one person intends (and in his mind is actually sayin' or doin'), and what another person hears or interprets from that. So yep, sometimes one lad might think he's playin' a competitive game like Risk, and the other lad can think he's in an alliance with this cool older boy that is then crushed and betrayed. Sometimes a person can be doin' unto others as he would have himself be done unto, because he enjoys receiving good pranks, and so in turn does one to someone else, only to be surprised when it is misinterpreted. That's not sayin' that Risk is bad, or that pranks are wrong. That's sayin' that since Babel we haven't always communicated perfectly. Jesus was a frequent user of puns. He from time to time made fun of his apostles, gave 'em nicknames, was even pretty pointed with 'em and with others. I reckon he had a fine sense of humor and joy. Yeh should perhaps get to know him better, packsaddle. I reckon you'd like each other. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Hullo there ascoutbuddy. Welcome to the forums! I reckon one of the hardest things for us folks to do as adults and parents is to step back when our young lads are having some difficulty or another. These days it almost seems expected that parents will plow the road of obstacles for their kids, though it wasn't so very long ago that a boy of age 12 had passed his "coming of age" and was expected to leave home as an apprentice worker in a trade. I can't see why it's your job to put up anything, includin' a stink. Your son is a bright fellow, and so I think odds are he can figure it out. As boys move into their adolescent and teen years, what they need most is a safe and supportive "home base" from which they can launch out into the world to try different things, work with different people, challenge themselves and succeed and fail. Those are their challenges and successes and failures, eh? Don't take them away. They're important. Sometimes when there's a Lifesavin' MB class, the MBC has to set things up for the group, and doesn't have the time or ability to do any swim remediation. Might even be that some lad needs Lifesaving for Eagle rank and is runnin' out of time, so that particular group is tryin' to move fast. So while yeh report a few things that I wouldn't consider best practice, I think yeh also have to expect that volunteers don't have infinite time. Often the MB class structure is designed more as testing than as instruction, with an expectation that the boys will work on the learning and practice on their own. So I'd suggest that yeh just be that safe, supportive "home base" for your son, where he knows he's loved and encouraged. Ask him what he's goin' to do, not what you should do. Ask whether he'd like to try a swim team or some other swim activities to build up his skill and stamina perhaps. Age 12 is pretty young for Lifesaving MB without some real strong swimming background /trainin'. That's a good way for him to work on the badge, eh? A Scout Learns, then a scout is tested. Seems like this last test suggested he needed a bit more learnin', and that's just fine. Beavah

Hiya bokris, Yes, in general there's an expectation that there be 5 boys on the roster to recharter. However, yeh can usually get that requirement waived by your council under circumstances like what you're talkin' about. Nobody wants to lose a troop, so folks will work with yeh to make sure that doesn't happen if there's a solid plan in place. Beavah

Yah, boxers or briefs... or more like what kind of hikin' yeh do. If yeh do a lot of scramblin', bushwhacking, or stuff like skiing with a pack, then internal is the only way to go. If you're talkin' all trail hiking on somethin' like the AT, then an external will work fine, and has a slight advantage in ventilation. If you're talkin' just 3-season weekends and yeh have the other ultralight gear to make it work, go frameless and fast. Just a matter of preference, budget, and individual fit. Never dangle anything off a pack. Stuff goes inside or strapped tight and secure. Yeh can tell the folks who know what they're doin' at a glance by lookin' at their kit. Experienced hikers are hikin' with packs clean and properly loaded. Gumbies are hikin' down the trail with stuff lashed on, clipped on, or draped on like wilderness hobos. Beavah

My gosh. This feels so wrong. Are we reaching some sort of agreement? Well, we could start callin' each other names or start criticizin' each other's conversational style if yeh like. Yah, I think we're in essential agreement. I'd certainly agree with acco40 as well. Mostly, yeh just say "sure thing!" and point 'em in the right direction. Occasionally, yeh counsel 'em toward somethin' else for one reason or another, or yeh say, "Sure, but not at the MB Fair, I'll find yeh a better counselor." Very rarely, yeh say some version of "no, not yet." B

Ah, so many pranks, so little space, eh? I was delighted one day to find that the scouts had lofted my camp cot 40 feet up a tree. Was even more delighted when da following year they did the work to loft my entire tent, platform and all. That took some work! I recall the lads who rounded up snakes for the scoutmaster's tent. Wow, did he howl! No snakes were harmed in the filming. There was da Asian lad who brought some sort of Asian dessert on a campout. Sort of round dough balls that were eyeball shaped, filled with a ginger liquid of some sort. Used food dye to paint pupils and irises on 'em. Looked like eyeballs. Felt like what you'd imagine eyeballs to feel like. Bitin' into 'em, squished and released juice just like yeh might imagine an eyeball would. It was great fun convincin' each person to try eatin' an eyeball. Once again, da Scoutmaster was the best "victim". Yep, that involves deception of a mild sort, but I don't reckon it causes any harm. But here's a question for packsaddle and others: Did yeh ever play Risk as a lad? For a stretch a bunch of scouts I knew were into it. Risk generally involves players makin' "alliances" and sometimes breakin' those alliances. So if a trusting lad was playing the game and got beat because an alliance shifted, are we also to be shoutin' "unTrustworthy!"? If an older scout says "Oooh, nice!" and plays a bluff over his poker hand, is that unTrustworthy too, because a younger player got fooled by the bluff and lost all of his bet of cookies? Yeh can make exactly the same arguments about those things as about shelf stretchers, and even end up with the same feelings, eh? Lots of young fellows get pretty upset about losin' a game. Only difference is it takes longer to learn poker than to learn to be observant about funny words. Beavah

I propose that we do not water down the swim test! Yah, SeattlePioneer, I hear yeh. Like Oak Tree says, though, we do water down the swim test most of the time, and give credit for just completin' the 100 yards. Perhaps we should separate the swim test requirement for rank advancement from what we expect in order to access the waterfront. For rank, we want boys to swim in a strong manner. That's somethin' to work on over time and get good at, just like any advancement requirement. Yeh shouldn't have do demonstrate it day one of camp any more than you have to line up and demonstrate a shear lashing at check-in. For access to the waterfront, we just run things like every other beach, waterfront, and pool in da civilized world. Beavah

In the previous thread, Tampa Turtle writes: I have seen pretty good swimmers fail under the camp system. Stress or the venue it is a lot of pressure. We never tease the guys that fail and will keep re-trying until they pass.... Last year we had a ring of fellow scouts and scouters swimming along with a guy to help him out. Yep, that's the way of things, except that many units aren't as caring and pro-active at protectin' their kids as Tampa Turtle's. I've never been convinced that it's necessary to provide scouts with stress and pressure on the first day of camp, in some big impersonal swim check production. Especially since by and large yeh see camp swim check signoffs that don't really meet the BSA First Class requirement of swimmin' in a "strong manner", so their value is pretty dubious. The kids who can't even flail their way through it weren't likely to be jumpin' out to the deeps to begin with. More to the point, teen lifeguards routinely handle swimming pools with higher ratios of swimmers to guards than we have at BSA camps, and they do it without doin' swim checks. Every day. All over the nation. Knowin' swimming ability for boating activities I think is more important, but that can be handled in a more kid-friendly low-key way, don't yeh think? In da previous thread we got all hot and bothered about poor pranks that (psychologically) hurt or embarrass kids, but honestly I've seen far more "damage" from swim checks and even from some camps' approach to medical checks. Is it time we stopped hidin' behind a safety excuse with this one, and rethink it a bit? What does your unit or camp do to make this more reasonable and fun for boys? Beavah

Beavah - I think your using edge examples to over emphasize the SM signature. Yah, perhaps, though I have in fact seen all of those edge cases. I'm not sayin' they're common, though. The vast majority of MB work requests get approved by the SM without a hitch. But every few hundred badges or so, yeh get a situation or a lad (or a parent) that needs special handling, and special handlin' is just fine, and perfectly consistent with da guidelines: Though a few merit badges may have certain restrictions; short of them, any registered Scout may work on any of them at any time, as long as he has the approval of his unit leader. This is indicated by his or her signature on the Application for Merit Badge, No. 34124, commonly called the blue card. (7.0.0.2, Guide to Advancement, emphasis mine) So the actual "key guiding statement" that yeh were referring to in the guide actually says exactly what Eagle92 and I are sayin', eh? Not that it matters in particular; yeh should do what yeh think is right for your boys and your CO in any event. And you're right, eh? That sort of thing should be rare. To my mind da most common and perhaps best use of the discretion is for a SM to not grant approval for poorly run MB Fairs. Beavah

I am talking about you individually. Ah, glad we got that out there in da open, eh? At least Merlyn is delightfully direct about it. B

Yah, hmmmm... That's quite da revisionist history there, eh? Again, how often have people rallied da nationalist sentiments of the public and government and caused wars? If you're thinkin' that is somehow better than religious folks workin' together, I'm at a loss. Catholic Spain was one of the first to ban slavery, in part due to Dominican (and later Jesuit) priests. Later on, da Catholic Church and its nasty pope and cardinals condemned slavery pretty decisively In Supremo Apostolatus, eh? It was da response by the "a la carte" Catholics and bishops that waffled on the issue here in da U.S. Would that they had been more faithful instead of choosin' to reject the guidance of their church, many people might have been saved. The evangelical churches and da Quakers nonetheless soldiered on. What yeh fail to grasp is that it was "the public and government" workin' to end slavery only because that public was unitin' behind their religious beliefs and they were committed to acting on those religious beliefs to change the government. B

Yah, what Eagle92 said, eh? I think you're takin' one sentence out of context as a "key guiding statement", fred8033. Sometimes it is true that those with experience should re-think things, I'll grant. Yeh do occasionally see scouters like what you are talkin' about, who are too adult-run and get in boys' way. Lots of times, though, it takes experience to be able to understand, interpret, or apply written advice as well. That's why at many BSA camps you'll see age, rank, or other restrictions on some merit badges, limits on slots available, etc. When the rubber meets the road, we don't really mean that any boy can do any MB program any time he wants. Individual characteristics of the boy, safety issues, courtesy issues, da restrictions placed by outside outfitters providin' instruction and more are all part of da equation. B

Obviously I disagree. But to say, essentially, that the policy is right because it was adopted by a majority of those who get to vote, there I really disagree. Yah, speakin' of makin' ridiculous assertions... Yeh don't really think that any of us folks who argue from a religious perspective believe what yeh just claimed, right? We would to an individual claim the same thing as you, eh? A bad policy would be wrong even if it were adopted unanimously, because Natural and Divine Law is more important than human law. However, in a democracy and a society of laws, we debate policy choices and make decisions as a community, eh? In our community, we agree that the majority decides the policy, albeit with some structures to slow down certain kinds of changes to avoid da heat of the moment, and a few structural things that require supermajorities to change. Even when we disagree with a policy adopted by da majority, in almost all cases we agree with the process, and believe that destroyin' the process is generally worse than the bad policy. We call that good citizenship, and it's even consistent with Natural and Divine Law in most cases, because tearin' down the system does greater harm than the bad policy. Of course we still have da right to gripe, complain, and say "I told you so!" Might makes right in a democratic context means yeh use da levers in the system to force a result that yeh want instead of convincing people. Yeh use da courts to try to force a private policy change in this case, rather than usin' argument and example to convince people to change. Or yeh want to try to get others to force a change by economic power, cuttin' off access to funding or access to potential members. In a democracy, that tends to happen when in fact your arguments aren't good enough to convince others, or yeh aren't committed to doin' the hard work of changin' hearts and minds. So if yeh want to change da BSA policy, become an active, large, enthusiastic charterin' partner and exercise your right to vote. Show up and convince others that are on the fence of the rightness of your position. Or, otherwise, go start your own organization and compete in da market. Nobody's stoppin' yeh. It's like respondin' to arguments rather than takin' shots at people for perceived airs of superiority, or their rural upbringing, or their funny accent. It takes integrity and a good argument. Name callin' or ad hominem stuff requires neither. Beavah

Yah, moosetracker, I'm just havin' a really hard time followin' your arguments. Where is da notion of "Holy War" comin' from? Da notion of Holy War (jihad) is an Islamic notion, eh? How does that apply here? Historically I reckon it applies to the jihad/Crusade conflicts, though those were also economic, political, and cultural conflicts. Rallying religious groups I reckon has been a lot better historically than rallyin' nationalist sentiment. Rallying Hindus with a religious non-violent message got yeh Gandhi. Rallying Christian churches got yeh an end to slavery and the successes of da civil rights era. Rallying religious groups got yeh most of the orphanages and charity medical care in da U.S. for most of its history. Can yeh point to any time that rallying nationalist sentiment has ended well? Religion has long been a check and counterbalance to the behaviors of individuals and government, eh? Absent religious objection, how do yeh fight the eugenics movements of the early 20th century? Da government endorsed 'em. The science of the day supported the work. The groups that stepped up were those that believed in somethin' better than individuals, or science, or government. Remember "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..." When yeh object to people who are claimin' they have God on their side to correct a wrong, yeh are throwing away Jefferson and the founders, yeh are abandoning Desmond Tutu and the anti-apartheid churches in Africa. In fact, yeh are givin' up on almost all da folks who throughout history have had the courage to stand up to governments and tyrants. So let's not be too hard on religion, when its record from "rallying" people is actually quite a bit better than public/government/political groups "rallying" people. It takes only a moment's cursory examination to recognize that that sort of thing is da real source of wars, if we're bein' honest with da data. Beavah

And that's not what they do, you ignorant hick Yep, there are things that da courts properly should do. That's the ideal, eh? Like any ideal, the reality is more complex and subject to human frailties. So courts and judges sometimes aren't as wise or prudent as we hope they'd be in the ideal. No different from hopin' that people who claim to be rational atheists can formulate an argument without callin' people names or other childishness. Sometimes yeh just get disappointed. Beavah

Yah, well, that's da nature of democracy too, eh? The challenge that you'd have is that public schools are represented by public school boards, who are elected officials that represent their constituencies. So that requires convincin' the public, eh? Do I think that would happen? Well, no, because I think it's a poor idea and I reckon most Americans would agree. So in that way, no, I don't think it's realistic. But it's more realistic than the current approach, eh? After all, who would have thought Ron Paul takin' the state of Maine was realistic? What I'm advocatin' is the same thing I always advocate in issues of public policy. To change public policy, yeh should expect that yeh have to convince people. Yeh have to do the hard work of changin' hearts and minds. Yeh should not expect that da court system act like a tin pot dictator and shove your desired policy down others' throats. That's not what courts are for. Same with changin' a private membership corporation. Do the hard work of convincing the members. When yeh convince others, yeh get the sound public policy of the Civil Rights Act, which has stood the test of time. When yeh use the courts, yeh get mandatory school busing, one of the most disastrous policies of the last 50 years. B

Quite right, Merlyn. It's poor strategy if your goal is societal acceptance of gays or atheists or whatnot. If instead your goal is ideological purity in government institutions, then it is a perfectly reasonable strategy. The Constitutional question has never been argued, so all either of us can do is speculate, eh? I choose to speculate differently than you. Pure speculation. Show us some evidence that such a thing could realistically have happened. Packsaddle, all yeh need to do is the same homework the Ron Paul people are doin', eh? Read the bylaws, and articles of incorporation, and know the NFP corporate law for each state. CORs can determine da makeup of council representatives to the BSA annual meeting. The representatives can determine the makeup of the BSA's decision-making corporate board. A quick check will show yeh there are far more public schools than there are current BSA units, so they'd have the numbers. What's hard is that this requires the extra effort of actually buildin' youth programs and convincing others of your viewpoint. Yeh can't just get a judge to smack 'em over the head, yeh actually have to spend time reasoning with fellow citizens and scouters and bring 'em around to your way of thinking. But that's what we're supposed to do in a democracy, eh? Beavah

It says "We can not, We will not comply with this unjust law." Isn't that the same as Boycott?? Nah. It's what's called "civil disobedience". It's a time-honored and ethical way of respondin' to unjust laws. I'm not sure why da Catholic church advocatin' non-violent civil disobedience should be an issue for anybody. It's a personal or corporate act of conscience, and an effective form of protest in a democracy. Now, da bishop runnin' afoul of Godwin's Law is kinda funny. But again, I don't think it's fair to judge an entire faith or group of people based on da actions of outlier individuals. Especially in a case like this where fellow Catholic leaders are callin' him to task on their own. After all, if the entire USA were judged based on the words of some of our congresspeople, I don't reckon we'd fare as well as da Catholic Church. Beavah

Thanks, skeptic, for bringin' it back around. I think da issue for swim checks at camp is the industrial, impersonal, run-em-through approach, especially since da staff doesn't know the boys. I just don't think yeh can ever make that work for all the young fellas, especially when yeh add cold or murky water or altitude like yeh suggest. I'm much more fond of lettin' units do the swim checks at home with their unit. If we're really worried that the unit won't do 'em well, post a few videos of what each level should look like. Honestly, though, I think on average da units are a bit stricter than most camps. The camps tend to allow the "drowning in a forward direction" thing for the most part. Beavah

Nah, NJCubScouter, "might makes right" refers to an effort to force a position on da majority. What we're talkin' here is that a majority of da representatives that vote on da national policy hold a particular point of view. This is nuthin' other than a statement that in a democratic organization, the decision goes to da majority. Merlyn, in gettin' charters moved from public schools to churches, guaranteed that the BSA would maintain its current policy. That's what we call "poor strategy." Or, if yeh prefer, "my way or the highway" reasoning. If instead those same chartered partners worked for change from within, spreadin' their version of Scouting to all da public schools in the land who agreed with 'em, they could have forced a change on the BSA quite easily. Merlyn counts it as a win, but actually it was a win for us Christians who are generally supportive of da policy. Beavah