Beavah

SM assigned service project is still in there. No, Jay K, it's not. Never has been, if my aging memory serves. Eagle Scout has always required service in a POR. Da possibility of substituting an assigned leadership project is only available for Star and Life ranks. And it's not supposed to be "service projects", eh? It's supposed to be "a leadership project to help the troop". See http://scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/eagle.aspx and http://scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/star.aspx Also, positions like Bugler are allowed for Star and Life, but are not allowed for Eagle rank. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Lisabob, yeh can't push. Glad yeh recognize it. Pushing teenagers is like pushin' string. All yeh end up with is a snarl. Now, if there's an adult or youth in the troop that he really respects, sometimes that person can "pull" just a bit. At some point Eagle isn't "for" the scout, it's for the younger boys. As Eamonn describes, if the good, adventurous kids that the younger fellows (and their parents) look up to don't get Eagle and only the lunkheads do, then it hurts da program and those younger boys. Eagle and all of advancement only works for them if da rank corresponds to the young men that they want to be like some day. So it's his gift to da troop, not vice versa. Beavah

1) If memory serves, the SM can assign a leadership project in lieu of a 6 month POR. Is that still the case. Nah, you're mixin' it up with Star and Life. For Star and Life a boy can do a SM-assigned leadership project in lieu of a listed POR. For Eagle, he has to serve in a listed POR (and the list is slightly different from that for Star and Life). Beavah

Yah, I'm certainly not goin' to defend Governor Perry. Da fellow seems to me to be... well, it's hard to say just what he is. Not da best example of an Eagle Scout perhaps. Like anything, there is some truth to da matter, though. Partly because of what Merlyn describes as lower level idiots in school administrations who can't seem to wrap their brains around da concept. That's often da case when legalism replaces common sense. Now, while students nominally have a limited right to pray, teachers do not. Because a teacher praying may be an "undue influence" by his or her example, that's not allowed. A teacher can, however, tell students that God doesn't exist, or that not supporting gay marriage for religious reasons is homophobic. So how would yeh feel as a parent if your kid's teachers are permitted to slam your family's beliefs, but not express agreement with those beliefs in da simplest and least threatening manner? Fair action by da government? And let's look at clubs, eh? A Christian Club can meet durin' school time, sure. A teacher might even be appointed as an observer to make sure da students don't hurt themselves. But da teacher is not permitted to lead da club, organize events, or even help in those ways. Compare that with da "scientific skeptics" club. So long as it's areligious or anti-religious, a teacher can lead the club, help organize events, etc. Naturally, teachers being much more experienced at such things, those events and clubs are more likely to succeed. Is that fair and neutral action by da government, or does it privilege one viewpoint over another? Then our "Diversity Club" that advocates a position that animism is equally valid religiously with Christianity is eligible for direct funding by the district using tax dollars. So not only do they have a teacher who can organize events, they have funding that da Christian Club does not, to make their events far more attractive. Funding that may well have come from taxpayers who would be more in tune with da Christian Club. If the State allows advocacy of one position but not another, allows organizing and leads one group but not another, funds one group but not another, it's hard not to see that as "establishing" a position opposing Christian belief in da schools. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... A few thoughts. First, CubsRgr8, yeh have to be careful about going behind the back of the SM. As an ASM your role in da program is to support and assist the SM who has been selected by the committee and CO for that position. Boys will naturally look for the "weakest link" adult sometimes, and yeh don't do the lad or the program any favors that way. So your first job is to call the SM and work out together how your troop wants to handle this boy. Da second thing I think yeh need to do when you talk to the lad is convey the honest truth. Yeh don't get a job because you "need one". You get a job by demonstrating to others that you're committed and capable and hardworking. This cockamamie notion of appointing boys to PORs because they "need one" is a terrible lesson in character, and character is what we're tryin' to teach. So, when it comes to options. 1. Accept it's over - Nope, I don't think he's there yet. Accept that it's going to be hard. 2. Get the PL to abdicate and the patrol to conduct a "mercy election". Nope. Completely bogus notion. Patrols should select the best person, and presumably did. And once selected, that person is honor bound to serve. 3. Get SM to appoint to a fluff position - Nope. No fluff positions, and it should be da SPL that does any appointing. Now, if there really is a need for a Webmaster and the boy really enjoys that sort of thing, then he should put together an example site and make a pitch to the SPL, listing all the things he's going to do and all the ways that will help the troop. Then maybe! 4. Go be a Den Chief - Dubious. Being a Den Chief requires the approval of the CM and the SM. There's no "appeal" for that, eh? He's not a Den Chief without the SM's say-so. Besides, joinin' up as a Den Chief this far into the year is pretty awkward unless he already knows the Den Leader and pack. And if he does and knew they needed help, then why hasn't he stepped forward before now? 5. Transfer to an Eagle Mill - Nah. A Scout is Loyal. We don't accomplish a thing if we give a boy Eagle and in da process undermine the values we care about. So I would think that da proper way to counsel the lad is to go with the modified #3. Show the SPL that you're genuinely capable and interested in serving in a position, either a vacant one or doubling up in a position with someone who needs help. Now, if the lad hasn't been a good participant or worker in the past, then that reputation may be hard to overcome, eh? That's a good lesson itself. Have him take on the task and do it anyways, even if told "no". People are more apt to give yeh credit after yeh bust your butt for 8 months not expecting anything than they are agreein' to be wheedled into a position up front. That would show real character. Beavah

Also, if JuniorBob is an active fellow, Hiking MB is quite doable in that time period, as is Lifesaving. Remember, for Life yeh can count multiple badges in the Swimming / Hiking / Cycling or Lifesaving / Emergency Preparedness groups. I'd pose it as a fun challenge to the lad. Can he figure out a way to make it work "for real" and still have fun doin' it. Bet him that he can't. .(This message has been edited by Beavah)

On the flip side, if the problem is contracts that are too rich, don't blame the unions - blame the school boards that also negotiated those contracts. Contracts are a two-way street and management must have thought the deal was ok, or they wouldn't have agreed in the first place. Yah, Lisabob, but this gets back around to BDP's point, eh? School employees can and do campaign to replace the folks sittin' across the table from 'em, which can be a significant cause of "management thinking the deal is OK." Sometimes elected officials represent da special interest lobby that gives 'em money and helps 'em hold office, rather than the general taxpayer they're supposed to. Imagine that! If I remember correctly, in your little corner of da upper midwest, school board elections are held at off times, and as a result have extremely low voter turnout on average, which makes it a lot easier for a mobilized special interest to succeed. It ain't quite the same as for a corporation. Teacher unions also have access to all of da financial information of the district, so it's not like they can claim that they didn't know what management knew about da fiscal realities. But I agree with yeh on the rest. Though management is under no obligation, and as a matter of policy shouldn't bargain on things other than wages, benefits, and working conditions, they should be able to collaborate with da teachers and come to "mutual understandings" that they live up to honorably. fred8033, da state exposure to unfunded and just plain corrupt state pension systems in many areas are a looming disaster that no one is willing to talk about. Makes da GM pension fiasco look like a picnic, and illustrates why government run pensions (and unregulated private pensions for that matter) are just a bad idea. Beavah

Yah, I'll speak for old furry fellows long in da tooth. I think picky eaters have been around forever. Some kids are just that way, and many families aren't very diverse in their tastes. I agree with da rest of my August and Ancient Colleagues, however, when they say that the mollycoddling now is a lot worse than it was. And da whole vegetarian/vegan fettish is new, particularly among boys. B

I'd rather this approach be applied to a sail training program than PWC's. I could envision a program that would involve three days of on the water instruction in 25 - 30 foot sailboats, capped by an overnight cruise on their own. Not too much different than what many charter companies do. Yah, here too I agree with scoutingagain and packsaddle. There's somethin' about unpowered wilderness travel, whether it's foot, paddle, sail, or ski, that it just seems to me has a merit beyond what da powered operations have. Maybe I'm one of those wilderness snobs. I just think havin' to work with and adapt to the environment contains more lessons than just powerin' through it. Both have merit, so I don't like to see restrictions on either, and I think it's fine for boys to be given opportunities to learn both. But given a choice, I'd just prefer scouts to pursue non-powered or human-powered activities. They're young and strong and adaptable, and I think it just teaches deeper lessons. If yeh ever travel internationally, you'll find that da sea scouts of various maritime countries run programs very much like what scoutingagain describes. Youth go out sailing on open waters, even youth who are quite young. Older youth have keys to the kingdom, and do everything from operate chase boats to instruct to the ability to go out on their own on group equipment. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If PWC users had similar requirements I don't think anyone would have objections Then if yeh feel it's necessary, put in place similar requirements instead of bein' lazy. And apply da requirements equally to those of any age. Neither I nor anybody else has a problem with having requirements of demonstrated skill or experience. Situation solved! Yep, packsaddle, I was in da north, so the issues with violence were reduced. I'm not suggesting that we're intent on lynching uppity young people (though a few in law enforcement seem to be enamoured of using weapons on unarmed, peaceful students ). But da more insidious types of discrimination are their own forms of violence, with perhaps more catastrophic long term social consequences. And yep, those folks yeh are talking about were all Democrats back then. Never did have much truck with da Democratic party of that day. B

It sure isn't teacher's unions who are keeping class sizes above 30 Yes and no, Lisabob. Yah, sure, they lobby for smaller class sizes, but when it comes to negotiating they take da unsustainable salary increase and the gold-plated benefit package every day and twice on Sunday. Da expenses of a school district are salaries. Only way yeh run into budget difficulties that compromise class size is if salaries and benefits are increasin' faster than revenues. And since revenues are mostly tied to inflation of property values (or sales tax commerce), they're fixed by the general economic climate that all of da local citizens are experiencing. By and large da teachers unions also eat their young. Voting power is always with those with seniority, as is job security, performance notwithstanding. Given a choice, they often opt for salary increases above steps even if it means layoffs for da younger members down the road. Of course school districts and boards aren't blameless, eh? What property owner wouldn't want to get a great service for free, eh? Sometimes da board represents that interest. And because of da government near-monopoly on education, teachers don't have the ability to switch employers or set up their own practice as easily as other professionals. So there's a place for unions in da public sector. I think Walker and his ilk overstepped in that regard. Overall, though, I agree with BDP, eh? There is a real risk of havin' too much of da GDP controlled by government. Not just from folks voting themselves largess, but because of da government's ability to then use economic leverage against large segments of da voting populace. Beavah

Yah, KC9, my reaction was a specific one that had to do with Lisabob's willingness to discriminate in employment because of her personal "unease.". It's that employment discrimination that set all da Beavah's fur on end, because I've heard it all before. Seen it plenty, too. I don't think you've ever found me anywhere on these forums advocating for an age-based restriction, despite my tongue-in-cheek notion of not allowin' scouters over da age of 35. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why parents, employers, and others should not be trusted to make reasonable decisions based on da qualifications of da person standing in front of 'em. B

Why is discrimination based on age acceptable in some cases, but not others? Yep, that's da question folks in your camp need to answer, KC9. Why is it acceptable for a 17 year old to fly young kids in an aircraft but not a JetSki? Why is it OK for an 18 year old to operate a 50mm in a densely populated area but not buy a beer or teach firearm safety to kids with BB guns? Like da rest of your logic, KC9, it's muddle-headed. The issue is not "can't do X because of Y". It's "Can't do X because despite ample evidence to the contrary I believe people in your demographic group are incapable of X.". Throw in an added subtext of "and I would prefer people in your demographic group would stay in their proper, subservient place" and now yeh have da real argument yeh missed. Or, to flip it around on yeh, I maintain that nobody over the age of 35 should be permitted to be scoutmaster or ASM. Brain scan images show that intellectual capacity by then is decreasing along with brain size, as is ability to learn and adapt. They even have trouble interpreting simple arguments or accents, and have demonstrated an inability to cope with new technologies like laser tag toys. In much of da world, people are "uneasy" with older SMs, and da serial molesters who are caught are always above age 35 when they do most of their harm. If yeh ever deal with 'em in divorces or other stressful proceedings, yeh can reliably predict that they will behave exceptionally poorly, and completely lose track of what's in da best interest of children. Nope, none of 'em should be Scoutmasters, or for that matter employed in any youth-serving profession. Beavah

So if the rules allow a 16 year old camp counselor to teach ATV-driving to a bunch of other 16 year olds, the risk is that the camp director assigns some kid to teach on the basis that "well he's ridden one of these things before..." Yah, see there, SesttlePioneer? That's da liberal mentality in a nutshell, eh? . Because of a fear that someone somewhere might behave irresponsibly, it is necessary to pass regulations on everyone everywhere. Nanny State to da rescue! Even though it will likely also mean that someone with sailingpj's credentials from years as a Sea Scout gets passed up in favor of trusting a bunch of kids to an out of work adult who may have ridden a JetSki a couple of times on vacation 5 years ago. I also don't think it is right, as a matter of policy, to intentionally put youth in positions where they will be responsible on a frequent basis for split-second judgments that can result in serious injury or death of other youth in their care. Like, for example, babysitting? Or lifeguarding? In da split-second judgment department, da young folks are usually far better than us old timers. I'd rather trust youth to a 16 year old swim team lifeguard than most adults who nominally hold "certifications." Fact is, we routinely trust young people with these things, eh? They drive carpools to school, drive younger siblings to activities. In da rural areas of my state they ride snowmobiles to school, and older kids keep an eye on and help da younger ones. Same with playin' pond hockey. Seventeen year olds can take kids on airplane rides as pilot-in-command. Back in da day as an 8th grader at our small school I used to teach and supervise peers usin' shop equipment, and it was routine for 6th-8th graders to supervise younger kids on da playground. Aside from prejudice, there simply is no issue of capability. Da issue is one of individual skill or experience, which is best evaluated individually. Or, put another way, if da Camp Director can't be trusted to hire decent staff, then there ain't a thing yeh can do with age or policy that will make things safe. Yeh need to replace da Camp Director. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Ah, KC9, but there is a difference between generalizations and discrimination, eh? Yeh might have said back in da early 50s that in general, African-Americans were less well educated and socially/economically equipped than da average U.S. anglo, and that would have been correct. But there's a difference between that and sayin' that yeh don't think African Americans should be permitted to be teachers, or that yeh would be "uneasy" having a black person teach your child in school. One is just a demographic characteristic caused by societal inequities. Da second is unjust discrimination against individuals. I'm glad yeh never got to see it, but once you've seen it once it's easy to recognize again. What was being suggested was that individuals should be deprived of an opportunity for employment because of someone's notion that their class of people isn't capable. That's not emotional, it's not shock value, it is what it is. All the moreso because in this particular case there isn't even a valid generalization goin' on. Instead it's da made-up post-hoc nonsense that was also common back in the day, eh? That there must be a "scientific" reason to justify us. African-Ameican brain size is smaller or all that drivel. Teenagers just aren't capable of anything so challenging as piloting a vessel. Neglectin' da fact that illiterate teens off of Somalia are regularly engaging in blue water piracy despite da presence of the mightiest navies of da world. Yep, they're incapable of that because of their age. And yep, OGE, I remember all those arguments too, eh? If we allow 'em into our neighborhoods then they might rape our women, eh? Allow 'em into our restaurants and there won't be any such thing as private property anymore. If we were to stop discriminatin' terrible things would befall da Earth. But most of da world does just fine without gettin' all Prohibitionist. Outside of da countries that adhere to Sharia, I reckon we're again da most extreme when it comes to young people and alcohol. In fact, da truth is we regulate and restrict teenagers more than any other nation in the history of the world. And yeh think that's not discrimination? And that somehow da approach is conservative? I know what those words mean. Do you? Beavah

Yah, I assure yeh I have an absolutely marvelous grip on myself. . Nuthin' in da least absurd or silly about the comparison. You're just not old enough to remember da arguments that used to be made. There's a difference between "I know my son well, and can make an objective and informed judgment about his particular abilities" and "I am uncomfortable with any young person doin' something". Da first might be good (or bad) parenting; da second is just da same discrimination that I remember from my younger years. I'm uncomfortable with a black doctor/lawyer/mailman. When yeh turn that generic statement of "unease" into regulations about who is "acceptable" as an employee for certain jobs you are doing exactly da same thing as the segregationists of the 1950s. I remember 'em. Their arguments were identical to yours. If 18 year olds can and do get paid to teach others to fly airplanes then 17 year olds are perfectly capable of teaching someone how to use a Jet Ski. Prohibiting them from holding such jobs just because yeh happen to be "uneasy" is exactly da same thing as prohibiting capable people from holding other jobs by virtue of some other irrelevant feature that makes yeh "uneasy.". Remember, da parents of the 17 year old in question may be just fine with it, eh? So don't pretend it's da same thing as parenting. SP, Lisabob's da liberal, not me. I'm an old-school GOPer, from da party that freed the slaves and opposed discrimination. As a conservative, I want to hand down to future generations da good features of society that can be preserved, and I'm skeptical of government intrusiveness and change. And this age thing, if you're old enough to have watched it, is just full of government intrusiveness and change. We have more restrictions, legal and social, on young people than we have ever had before. All yeh need to do to convince yourself of that is count da number of pages in anything from G2SS to student handbooks to da juvenile code in your state. It's da liberals who want government restrictions because they feel citizens of various types (young or old) aren't capable of gettin' by without a rule or restriction. Beavah

Lisabob, I wasn't accusin' yeh of racism, which is unjust discrimination based on race. I was accusin' yeh of unjust discrimination based on age. The difference is what da excuse is that's being offered for unjust discrimination. I'm an old fellow, eh? I remember what it was like when people felt it was OK to discriminate based on race. They sounded exactly like what you sound like when yeh (and others) talk about young people. It was OK and expected in polite white society back then, just as da age thing is OK and expected in adult society now. Very few people back then spoke against it, just as few do now. If yeh did speak against it, people felt yeh were "over the top" and rejected da notion that they were discriminating, or that it was da same thing as discriminating against, say, Catholics. If that makes yeh uncomfortable, then, well, good. It should. Hopefully it'll also make yeh think. It's easy to "oppose" discrimination when da key struggle was won 40+ years ago. It doesn't challenge da way yeh look at the world, so it's easy to be "liberal". Much harder to recognize and avoid da discrimination that's viewed as OK in your society. I remember. And just as KC9 points out about my one post, even when yeh are trying yeh sometimes slip. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... Yeh know, a 14-year old can operate a sailplane solo in da U.S. An 18-year-old can get a CFI and teach other people how to fly airplanes. In fact, one of the best CFI's I've had was a young college student. I don't care what anyone might claim, flying an aircraft of any type is an order of magnitude harder than operating an ATV or a boat, and da consequences of most in-flight mistakes are fatal, which isn't true of most land-based mistakes. And yeh know what? Young people do no worse than adults, and often better. Da notion that teens can't or shouldn't do something by virtue of their age is just discriminatory BS pure and simple. It is exactly the same sort of thing that was once said about blacks. Oh, look at [anecdote about black person]. Oh, I would never trust [black person]. Oh, my [black person] once kicked a wall. Oh, [black people] have a different brain structure, they must be inherently inferior. Do yeh know how many adults goin' through divorces or experiencing other person frustration do a lot more than just putting a hole in a wall? It's just nonsense. And it's perpetrated for da same reasons that all discrimination is perpetrated, eh? To keep someone beholden, dependent, and subservient. Shame on us. We in scouting should know and do better. Beavah

European countries may not control every aspect of the economy but cradle to grave medical care is socialism. No, it isn't. And I reckon that's da problem I'm experiencing. One group is either ill-informed or dishonest (because screamin' "socialist!" is good advertising copy for da ill-informed). Yeh could say that da Federal Interstate Highway system is "socialist!" via da same logic. Heck, in some places people are saying it and are convincing nitwit legislators to sell off the roads or bridges in their town. Da question is just a debate about what should be common infrastructure, like roads. In da U.S., we claim that "public education" should be common infrastructure, while in Europe and most of da rest of the world that's not the case. So in that way, we're more "socialist" if we keep throwin' that term around not knowing what it means. Da reality is that we just have different priorities and philosophies about what should be common infrastructure. Since WW2 we have also believed that basic research is a common infrastructure piece, though da tea party crowd no doubt considers that "socialist" too and would like to see you defunded in favor of only corporate and private research that can be kept as trade secrets or patents. None of this has a thing to do with what Socialism really is or means. Nothing. Nobody is proposing that we nationalize the aircraft industry or the WalMart. We're having a debate about whether it makes sense for businesses to be driven to bankruptcy by medical costs because they happen to have an older workforce, or whether having ERs overrun by uninsured folks makes sense, or how we fund advances in medical care and drugs. It's just a debate within various capitalist economies about what should be a road and what should be a building. Beavah

Interestin', Nike. About what I would have expected. Most of us back when da Euro first came about predicted it would never survive da first real economic downturn. I hate bein' right about that. B

Yah, hmmmm... seems like there's another thing I don't understand. Most of the time when yeh try to pin down one of these fellows to figure out what they're objecting to (like "socialism"), all yeh seem to get is chaff. It's like tryin' to see your way through air filled with confetti. So let's see... Europeans are socialists - False. Europeans are capitalists, with somewhat different government and societal priorities than our own. European social programs caused the current Euro crisis - False. That was caused by irresponsible deregulation and "bubble banking" just like in the U.S. Socialist programs are bankrupting countries - False. Iceland went bankrupt because of a banking crisis. Ireland went broke because they foolishly agreed to completely bail out their banks before they had figured out how much the banks owed. Greece, ah, Greece! Where to begin? It's a beautiful country except for the Greeks. If there were no social programs, taxes were low, and spending was lower things would all be OK - False. Again, this is a banking and policy crisis. Da countries with the highest taxes and social spending in Europe that are outside of the Eurozone have done just fine. Countries with the lowest taxes on business (like Ireland) have been badly hurt. Countries that have dramatically cut spending (like Greece and Britain) have crashed as a result. All da notions about "socialism" so far as I can tell are simply a fiction. So I'm left with da same conclusions I had in my first post.

It's a professional hazard, eh? Let's make it... Bankers use other people's money to make stupid, cheap loans to people/nations that have high risk. Bankers use those bad loans as collateral to get more of other people's money, using tricks that aren't regulated. Bankers use that additional money to make more stupid, cheap loans to people/nations that have high risk, because they collect transaction fees that make their quarterly profits look good. Bank executives make million-dollar bonuses. Stock holders rake in dividends. Economy changes. High-risk borrower can't make payments on loans. Bank pushes "austerity measures" and foreclosures. Poor high-risk borrower loses everything to pay for bank executives' million-dollar bonuses. Still not enough, because bank used bad loans as collateral for more bad loans. Bank becomes insolvent. Directors and executives immune by law, they get to keep everything. Stockholders whine to government. Government bails out banks. Money from average taxpayer transferred to bank major stockholders and directors and executives. Net result: incompetent bankers and inattentive shareholders get billions of dollars from poor people and taxpayers. Economy tanks, because poor people and taxpayers buy more stuff and create more jobs than rich bankers, but they don't have money. Incompetent bankers spend a bit rewarding corrupt regulators and politicians, and hire PR firms to try to convince people that it's the fault of lazy Greek socialists or liberals or stupid people who took out loans then lost their jobs. There's a kernel of truth to each. End result: stupid bankers who made absurdly bad loans gambling with other people's money get to keep all the money they stole from poor working-class people and taxpayers. Politicians ensure the system remains in place so they can do it again in a couple of years. B

Yah, hmmmm... speaking of "human" I have a policy that CalicoPenn is not allowed to post any more. That is my policy. I've written it down on the back of form I happened to have sitting on my desk about filing deadlines. Just because I happen to have written a policy for CalicoPenn on the back of an unrelated form does not mean that CalicoPenn must, or even should, stop posting. I've expressed my personal position, perhaps, but in actual fact I have no authority or cognizable interest in CalicoPenn's actions, and because we live in a free society, CalicoPenn can keep posting. I can call him names, accuse him of policy-breaking and violating made up oaths and such, but that means exactly... nothing. Fact is, "policy" or not, scouts across this great land of ours routinely, as troops and even as councils, raise money for causes outside of scouting, or contribute council funds to other local NFPs. We send goods to the troops. We support disaster relief. We raise money for goods and services in at least half of our Eagle projects. We've supported (indeed, we had a hand in founding) United Way. Doin' so is simply a part of citizenship and service, and we've featured many such efforts on da pages of Boy's Life, Scouting Magazine, and other promotional materials. As with all things, there's a balance, eh? There are edge cases where we want to be clear that the BSA, as an entity, is not necessarily supporting something even though a CO or a unit is. The BSA has an interest in maintaining its image and trademarks. But that's it. Just because lawyers sometimes write expansive language to protect against such edge cases doesn't mean diddly. Well, beyond da lawyers being a bit inexperienced or lazy. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yeh missed my point, E61. Maybe because you're not used to our Scouting lingo. In Scouting, our goals are building character, fitness, and citizenship. That's what we care about in the end. That's the real "prize" we have to keep our eyes on as adults. I expect yeh feel the same way as a parent. Your real goals aren't good grades for your stepson. They're having him become a happy, responsible adult who enjoys whatever his career is and contributes to society. To get to da goals of Scouting, we use a bunch of techniques, or "methods". The Outdoors is one, because being outdoors without all da modern conveniences helps teach responsibility and teamwork. Advancement is one, because having some external goals and motivation helps some boys develop internal goals and personal motivation. But da point isn't Advancement, or "getting Eagle". It's developing a happy, internally-motivated and character-filled citizen. Advancement is just a tool, eh? Like all tools, it can be used well, or poorly. It can work for some kids/jobs, but be the wrong choice for other kids/jobs. Same with grades, eh? Grades are just a tool da school uses to provide feedback. The goal is a lad who is interested in stuff, who knows how to do things. That's what every college wants. That's what we all want as parents and scouters, too, because that's what leads to happiness and success. Focus too much on grades and yeh lose sight of the real goals. Put too much emphasis on grades and you'll get what yeh emphasized - but not what yeh really want. Better to keep your focus on the real goals. Love your son. Listen to him. Encourage his interests. Cheer for his victories, support his strengths, commiserate with his failures and shore up weaknesses, but don't make weaknesses a big deal. Plenty of straight-A students end up face-down in the gutter. Plenty of high school drop outs end up as happy, well-off, productive citizens. Keep your eyes on da prize, not on the tool. The lads who succeed in college are the ones who have passionate interests, and can manage time across many activities. After freshman year, college success doesn't even correlate well with high school grades. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I reckon Eagle92 did a fine job explainin' my furry accent. That's exactly what I meant. B