Beavah

I know Beavah doesn't like it when I make this comparison, but I still believe it's a valid comparison - the BSA program is as much a franchise as a McDonalds. Yah, not a question of like or dislike, Calico. It's just a question of accuracy, and that ain't accurate. It could never be accurate of course, even if da BSA wanted it to be, because children are not burgers. There just aren't any nationwide educational programs with that level of standardization. Da schools in each state are given billions of dollars to try to align and "standardize" their curriculum and educational outcomes to national standards documents. How's that goin'? Can yeh point to a single state that's been successful, despite full-time employees and gobs of professional support? So it just couldn't be done even if we wanted to do it, and we don't want to. Da BSA in its charter agreement agrees to support and advance the goals of da Chartered Organization, not vice versa. So even if yeh viewed da Charter as a franchise agreement (which it is not), da terms are very different than McDonalds. And yeh can see in da new G2A that national has severely limited appeals, and made much clearer statements about these things being up to the reasonable discretion of da units. If you're looking for everyone being da same, yeh need to find a different organization than da BSA. Good luck with that. Fred8033's question is different, eh? I view it more as a "what should a unit do in a particular case. Discussing these is fun, we can learn from each other's approaches without havin' to be clones. That's da question I tried to answer, no obfuscation intended. I think da right answer is not to treat advancement as a focus or a goal, and spend your time focused on da real goals. If your goals are to teach entitlement, then yeh give da lad a patch and congratulate yourself on your troop's numbers and knowledge of various publications. If your goals are to teach character, then yeh sit and discuss how a boy is doin' and how yeh can help (your commitment), and when he might be able to re-join da unit as a young leader (his commitment). Advancement isn't on the table. Beavah

Beavah ... Thank you for your point. It's not at all addressing the question raised and pretty obvious, but thanks anyway. At least twocubdad addressed the question. Well, I was tryin' to address da question. Must be da funny accent. Let me try to be more clear. I think that if the SM is spending any time on that question, he or she should not be a scoutmaster. It's entirely the wrong question. You're dealing with a situation that calls for an approach from one of the other seven methods, so if you're spending any time at all focused on advancement in such a case, you're (as yeh put it in another thread) "dead wrong." Advancement ain't an entitlement that we should get all huffy about being "denied", like someone has been "denied" their civil rights. Advancement is just a form of recognition by others to help young lads learn and grow. It only works if da patch truly represents da respect of others, both youth and adult members. It's a gift, not an entitlement; a tool, not a goal. Lots of times yeh need to use other tools, so yeh set this one down for a bit. So a lad who came back after 8 months, da notion of advancement wouldn't even be on the table. We'd have other things to work through first. Beavah

Yah, forgive me for bein' a broken record here (does that analogy even make sense anymore?) . Where in da world was da SM during those 9 months, fred8033? None of da issues here have anything to do with advancement, eh? They're all about relationships and mentoring kids. Advancement is irrelevant, and if you're spending any time in it at all in such cases then yeh don't understand what scouting really is. I'd expect a good SM would be on da phone checkin' to make sure the boy and his family were OK. Beavah

Yah, but fred8033, who cares?. A lad who is largely absent certainly doesn't, if he hasn't pursued da issue for 8 months. The issues with the lad have nothing to do with advancement. The SM and everybody else should be lookin' to the real issues, not wastin' their time on foolishness. We care about kids, not ranks or award rules. A good SM is goin' to set aside the advancement issue in order to spend time with the lad on whatever the real issue(s) are. Put another way, why should a lad who hasn't fulfilled his basic duties as a member for 8 months expect that he can demand the time and attention of half a dozen volunteers? A BOR is a gift of service given to contributing members in good standing, eh? AAA won't come give yeh a free tow if yeh haven't been a member for 8 months. Why should a lad who hasn't been a real member for 8 months expect others to perform service for him, let alone give him a member's awards? These are questions of character and personal honor, eh? They, along with all of da other issues a boy may be working through, need to be addressed before the advancement game should start again. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

So, as the SM, youre going to say with a straight face that Zeke, with his 6 hour service project, has demonstrated the spirit of selfless giving and service to others, but 5Year Jr. with his 252 hours still hasnt quite got it Depends what the "it" is, eh? I reckon a SM might well sit down with 5yearJr. and talk about no matter how many hours yeh put in in service durin' the week, an honorable fellow still does his duty to God and puts in his hour in church on Sunday. No matter how much work he did for client X, an honorable fellow wouldn't charge that to client Y. The double-dipping lesson isn't about service. Heck, da BSA service requirement is too paltry to be about service. It's about personal honor and integrity. But maybe this just shows how far astray advancement method has gone, eh? I'm not convinced that the lads should ever be taught to expect an award for service. Let alone two for the same service. Beavah

Suppose a scout advances in January to First class. Active for four months as quartermaster and then mostly gone for six months. No reason discussed. In December, the scout asks for a SMC and a BOR. In May, the scout fulfilled the "active" requirements for Star per both BSA and unit expectations. But, the scout's been gone for months and essentially not currently meeting "unit expectations". Do you advance them? Wrong question, eh? Da question should be "are they still even on your roster?". None of the first year boys have even met them. If they claimed to be on da school newspaper but no-showed for eight months they certainly wouldn't be considered a member of the staff anymore, let alone be a candidate for promotion. Advancement isn't da issue in such a case, and tryin' to figure out advancement is da wrong way to approach it. . Advancement method takes a back seat to da other 7 at this point. Yeh sit down with the lad and talk about his life and commitments. Beavah

Most common thing yeh see are da aluminum SAM splints. Work OK, and yeh can cut 'em to size. That or a couple of air splints are da best way to go if yeh want to kit it. Most good field splints are best made from improvised soft bulky materials da way you describe, though. That seems to work best. For stiffness da aluminum frame stays from an internal rame pack can be used, or cut and rolled foam pads. Duct tape and water bladders can even make a serviceable air splint. Best to look to that sort of gear. Branches and such generally require way too much woodworking to be both effective and comfortable. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sure, packsaddle. No one size fits all for evaluatin' individual Eagles either, eh? Da point is only that one unit may require/expect that all First Class scouts live up to da spirit of the thing and be able to do one of Kudu's First Class Treks, while another may grant First Class after goin' to Brownsea da first summer of camp and sittin' in class. That doesn't stop an individual lad in the second troop from gettin' into it and workin' hard for other reasons than advancement, and pickin' up da same level of skills through his own effort. Just makes it much less likely. Not just because da adults aren't pushin' it, but because his peers aren't demanding it of each other, and peer influence is so strong on all forms of learning at that age. For da first troop, da rank means somethin' reliable and therefore is "worth" more. Doesn't say anything about da individual boy. In fact, for da rare individual lad who can do a real First Class trek in da second troop, it says a lot about him, eh? On his own he went beyond da expectations of his mentors and peers, with much less support. Beavah

Yah, Scoutfish, whatever. Any way yeh cut it, you as a parent are paying only a fraction of da real cost to educate your kid for 13 years (and longer). The rest of us taxpayers who don't have kids in da system are subsidizing 80% of it or more. Yah, I agree with yeh, in some parts of da country education is valued less and therefore not supported, but that's reflected more in quality than quantity. Beavah

Not sure, Calico. 'Round these parts da units who have higher expectations for PORs (gotta agree with fred8033 on his comments) are da ones whose older boys stay around in high school, because leadership in scouts is a worthy challenge for a high schooler, eh? It's not a middle school drop in activity. Boys want challenge. Da main reason for a lad to choose soccer over scouting is that soccer offers more challenge and growth. And if that's the case, that's pretty darn poor scouting. I'm not a one-size-fits-all fellow myself. I think standardization is vastly overrated and very, very costly to achieve. And all it gets yeh is da old Soviet economy. . Me, I think especially when it comes to growin' kids yeh want custom tailored, or at least a choice between many styles so as to find a good fit. Yep,that means it's like colleges, where a degree from one institution may not be worth as much as a degree from another institution. An Eagle from one troop may not be worth as much as an Eagle from another troop. But we all know that anyways, eh? Doesn't matter, a degree is still a good thing. Beavah Beavah

By doing so, the State siphons off about 9000 hours of Community Service from my school per school year. And in return da parents get free day care for 12 years allowing 'em to work during the day and the kids get a free education. Alternately, instead of payin' $1.5K per year in property taxes yeh can fork up $15K (or whatever private school tuition is these days) and give da rest of us our money back. Seems like givin' a few hours back to da community that contributed to give 'em 13 years of education isn't too much to ask. Of course, an honorable and civic-minded family would already be doin' lots more than the minimums, just like any good scout, so da requirement would hardly be a nuisance at all. Beavah

Yah, here's a question for da group... What do yeh suppose a "reasonable" participation expectation would be for other middle school and high school programs? Would 50% attendance be OK for da soccer team? For theater? For the Robot Club? Da school newspaper? The wargaming club? Would 50% attendance be OK to stay a member of "the group of guys who hangs out together at school?" What do yeh suppose a "reasonable" participation expectation would be for those holding Positions of Responsibility in da other middle school and high school programs? Would 75% attendance be OK for da team captain or manager? For the stage director or lead in the play? For da Robot Club president or newspaper editor? For the GM of da FRPG club? Would 75% attendance even be OK for da leader of the "group of guys who hangs out?" Remember, da "active" requirements are almost all associated with matching POR requirements, eh? Now, where on that scale of groups do yeh suppose Scouting should be? Lower than the gamers and da "guys who hang out?" Higher? Just curious. Beavah

I just don't think cookies are supposed to be the reward for community service. I think it's supposed to be respect and goodwill, and I have no problem whatsoever with kids earning respect and goodwill from multiple people for the same admirable behavior. Yah, sure. If a lad saves a life, he's goin' to be recognized by multiple groups. That's a free-will, voluntary choice on da part of those groups. There is no expectation on the boy's part that he deserves recognition by way of prior agreement. But that's not what we're talkin' about here. Whether it's for rank or NHS or confirmation class or what have yeh, there is an expectation of a "cookie" on da boy's part. In fact, there's a prior agreement on da expectations for the cookie. Of course most of this gets back to our goals, eh? What do we all want da boys to learn? This is where I really think that anybody who is spendin' their time tallying up hours and fractions of hours and portions of requirements in some computer program is doin' Advancement all wrong. Advancement should be like a suntan, eh? It's somethin' yeh just get naturally from being outdoors and workin' hard. We want lads to develop a lifetime habit of service, eh? Our paltry requirements and those of schools and honor societies all share that goal. Da point is to encourage service, not accounting. Service where yeh expect nothing, save your eventual reward in heaven. Alms where da right hand doesn't know what the left is doin'. Yeh can't get to that goal with creative accounting tricks to get da minimum hours logged. That teaches somethin' different. It's just fine if a lad doesn't have enough time to offer service. Self-improvement and family time and labor for pay are all worthy things, too. But then the lad shouldn't expect awards, recognitions, or memberships in honor societies where there is an emphasis on service. And that's OK, eh? Some kids make Valedicorian and not Eagle Scout, and vice versa. But a lad who makes both Valedictorian and Eagle Scout should have met da individual requirements of each, without any need for creative accounting. Just as a matter of personal honor. Da moment a lad thinks about double-countin', we've failed in our mission, eh? Because then he's focused on what he can get, not on what he can give. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... To be sure, one of da duties of an official in any organization is a duty of loyalty. And as a volunteer leader, even as an ADL, there is a duty of loyalty to da pack and the CO. Of course, as a treasurer and volunteer for Troop 2, there is also a duty of loyalty there, eh? An individual should be conscious of any potential conflicts of interest, for sure. But at da same time, most conflicts can be dispensed with simply by the individual conscientiously disclosing those potential conflicts, and managing 'em with some sense of honor. Da presence of a potential conflict by itself doesn't usually preclude service. So yeh say da fellow sells a lot of popcorn for the troop. That's not a conflict, so long as he's still doing his duty as an ADL. It's just a choice of how to best direct his efforts. Your unit doesn't have a claim on his efforts unless yeh specify a minimum sales amount for leaders. Da fact that you wish he'd sell more for you is not only irrelevant, it's just greed. Except for da foolish way your council has set things up so that units compete with each other. There, if his actions really affect da pack negatively, the conflict is real, but I'd address it by gettin' da council to stop that silly practice, since it's not really that fellow's fault. A thrifty parent is naturally goin' to work where the benefit is best for their family,mwhich is almost always goin' to be a troop because da expenses are higher. As an ADL, I reckon if the fellow simply discloses to other webelos families that he's affiliated with Troop 2 then they can make their own decisions about whether to take his positions with a grain of salt. Particularly if there's a DL or CM who is affiliated with Troop 1 . Of course da CO can choose to remove a leader for any reason, includin' lack of affiliation with their troop. Generally speaking', though, I'd never take this sort of action by email, and I'd never consider it at all until there had been several earlier conversations, first informally as an individual, then more pointedly as a small group with da CM and COR, then fully formally with da COR and perhaps IH. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Really? Six hours of service sometime in da space of 6 months is really so terrible and awful and onerous for da poor, traumatized, incapable lads that they just have to double count it with what is required for National Honor Society? Yah, service should just be a regular part of a boy's life, and I'd expect for a Star or Life Scout being a regular part of his life means a fair bit more than averaging 1 hour a month (and only when there's an award in play). Now, I reckon a bit depends on da nature and purposes of each group's expectations. If da school just wants to get the kids out doin' stuff, then they might accept an overlap with, say, a church youth group expectation. But in terms of a scout's Honor, I'm not convinced that a boy should ever try to double-count service for which he is receiving an award or recognition. Beavah

Yah, contamination from Leave-Much_Trace campers or ranchers is da only viable explanation. Real shame, that. Ordinarily, I'd tend to trust ground water, eh? It's tapwater for homeowners across much of da U.S. When well water is unsafe in parks, it's always been posted in my experience. I think in this case da fellow who did the testing blew it by not posting right then, and otherwise your son's troop just had a case of really bad luck timing. Yeh have to think about it like taking a bouncing grounder to the face playin' ball. Sometimes, in any activity, yeh just get the bad bounce. And then yeh deal with it. If a troop is goin' into an area where they expect to use surface water, that's a different story. While there's still plenty of surface water that's just fine to drink, da Leave-Much-Trace camper crowd has done a much better job of contaminating a lot of the sources. In that case there are three potential treatments (besides boiling, which works on all da biological contaminants). Halogens (Iodine or Chlorine). Easiest for kids, and cheapest. Put da tablet in, let it dissolve, wait for an appropriate length of time. Works fine on viruses and bacteria, takes a bit longer on da bigger parasites like giardia, and won't work for some of da big cysts. Filters. Heavy, expensive, clog easily, and most kids manage to cross-contaminate 'em by not being careful. Works on da bigger parasites, though not so well on viruses (ex. Hep A). UV. Expensive initial investment, but relatively fool-proof and kinda cool. Requires batteries, so harder to make work for long expeditions. Kills everything, works faster than any of da others. Really grimy water will need to be strained first. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Let me ask a related question regarding the utility of this process: Is anyone aware of a scout, who otherwise appeared qualified for Eagle, who was turned down at his EBOR because of adverse information received from a reference? Yes. More often, though, whomever is gettin' the references realizes there's an issue and alerts the SM, and then things are delayed so the lad can go and do the work required to repair a relationship of trust. Da utility from my perspective sittin' on EBORs is that it gives yeh insight into the lad from multiple perspectives, and can lead into good EBOR conversations. After all, by Eagle we do want a boy to live by da Oath and Law in his "everyday life" and the letters are deliberately designed to represent most of da various pieces of a lad's everyday life - family, church, school, employer, coach/director, peer, etc. I think da most common thing across councils is to have boys request da references with a form and a stamped addressed envelope, and then for someone at the district or unit to collect and call/follow up as needed. I think da norm is also to wait on a board until at least most are in, or to otherwise expect the lad to deliver the request with enough time to get 'em in. Lots of local variation in da particulars, though. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... canceling just for 30+ mph winds and a "threat" of storms? Surely yeh jest. Better to actually teach the lads how to set up and stake down a tent properly. Mostly I tell everyone that skin is waterproof. That havin' been said, I always tell folks yeh should cancel any individual event when yeh feel it's beyond da skills or the gear of the group to handle. That's just prudent. Then yeh should look at what yeh can do to improve da skills or gear of the group so that next time yeh won't have to cancel. One of da things is that some trips are committing and others are not. A backpacking trip is committing, eh? Once you're on da trail you're committed to hike out one way or another on the trail. Some paddling trips are da same. Often a good choice is to change a committing trip into a non-committing one, like a car camp, which gives everyone da experience of that weather with their gear but without as much concern. It helps build skill for da future. There are very few weather events that merit cancellation for teens who are well prepared. They tend to be only da ones that yeh can't be prepared for because they're so rare, or where da hazard is just obvious. Gettin' hit by a hurricane counts. Flood stage rivers or being out on open water in some conditions may count. A cave at risk of flooding fer sure. Of course, there are other times when yeh have to cancel or modify when da weather makes the event impossible, like a cross-country skiing trek when there is no snow. Beavah

1. When did we as an organization go from promoting a movement to advertising a product? How did this happen? Yah, with West. Been interestin', as the movement still continued among da volunteers for many decades, even as da corporate side increased with the membership growth. So long as we were in boom times there wasn't too much of a conflict, but after we peaked da corporate side became a bigger drag. 2. When did we as an organization go from discussing values as being essential to becoming a complete citizen to discussing values in a vacuum, with citizenship taking a back seat? How did this happen? Not sure. 1990s I think. Marketing of da "Timeless Values" thing was initially targeted at older high-net-worth donors, I reckon. Seems like that's da targeted appeal. Some folks liked it and rolled it out toward parents as well. 3. Why was it necessary to rebrand OA as "Scouting 's National Honor Society" when it doesn' t function as such and we seem to lack the will to make it so? For da same reason that when a subdivision paves over a meadow, they name it "Rolling Meadows". When da thing doesn't speak for itself, yeh try to develop a slogan that will appeal in a way that da actual product won't. 4. When we came out with the stickers that read "America is returning to the values that Scouting never left," what exactly did we mean? We did? Never seen that one. I reckon we were referring to Duty to God and Country, Helping Other People at All Times, being Trustworthy and Loyal and Helpful and all that... Beavah

Try patrol competitions, Eagle732. Not just on da individual events, but more like for a whole "season" where da patrols get to keep their current "record" of wins and losses and their "standing." Develop competitions where it's much harder (but not impossible) for patrols with fewer people out to be successful, and don't go chicken and decide "that isn't fair". If yeh hold firm, the peer pressure the boys will exert on their fellows, both positive and negative, will be awesome. No need to bribe 'em with special events or other stuff either. Just a token "best patrol of the season" patch or such is enough. Boys like competition for its own sake, not because they "get" something for it. In fact "getting" something cheapens it. Braggin' rights is what counts. Anyways, for sasha's original question, I think da successful units sorta expect 50% attendance or better. Truly youth-run units will have the PLC members puttin' in quite a bit of time - at least half of da time that they would spend on a high school extracurricular activity other than sports. Beavah Beavah

Yah, vogelb, here's some of da ones I've seen. Don't necessarily agree with 'em all, mind you, but I think da SM's in each case were doin' their best. Not allowing certain badges offered at summer camp, because those badges really couldn't honestly be completed at camp or because da quality of counseling at camp was poor. Not allowing certain badges, or any badges, offered at one-day Merit Badge Events. Again, because of quality. Not allowing a young scout whose eyes were bigger than his ability from pursuing a badge that would clearly result in disappointment. Those are generally da physically challenging badges that require some size and strength - Shotgun, Whitewater, etc. Not allowing some younger scouts who had difficulties at school to pursue one of the more complex book-work MBs like Citizenship in the World (often because mom or dad was pushing "required" badges). Not allowing MBs to be done with mom or dad when other counselors were available. Not allowing use of a counselor who the troop felt didn't do an adequate job, or who was not youth protection screened/trained by the Chartered Organization. Holding off a boy for a few months in order to put together a small group of boys to pursue a badge together or put together a "class" for the badge. Not allowing a boy to pursue a badge for disciplinary reasons (as in "you haven't demonstrated the ability to work independently without causing trouble, and until you do I can't recommend you to a counselor because it isn't fair to the counselor or other boys). Not allowing a boy to pursue another badge because of lack of follow through on previous badges (too many badges still "in the works"). Redirecting a boy to a different badge than what he requested. "You should really do Swimming before you work on Canoeing" or "You might consider doing Communications first because it will help you with the requirements for Public Speaking" or "It sounds like you're mostly into fly fishing. Did you know there's a separate MB for Fly Fishing that's different from Fishing?" I'm sure there are many more, that's just what I could think of off da top of my head! Beavah

Yah, da problem with pendulums is that their motion ain't the same, eh? Pendulums decelerate as they approach da extremes, where bubbles accelerate, and then "pop" rather suddenly. Think of how McCarthyism played out, for example. Pendulums are physical systems, eh? They're too regular and predictable for modeling social systems. Beavah

We do not actually have seperate accounts for the scout that we transfer or depost money into. Which matters not a lick. A college or university has just one set of funds deposited in various banks, and then keeps track of "individual accounts" for students on its own internal books. Do yeh think for a moment that da funds in such individual accounts don't "inure to the benefit of" the individual, even though they're being used for educational purposes? B

Yah, thanks Calico for doin' the homework for the rest of us and lettin' us crib your notes. I'd make a comment about lazy political party hacks again but Lisabob might yell at me. Yes, I would have been annoyed by "Emperor Bush" as well, vol_scouter. Can't speak for Eamonn, but I have to believe he would have, too. Folks are free in this great land of ours to make such comments, burn flags, call our soldiers murderers and all the rest, and they should be free. I personally don't think much of da practice, especially when the people haven't done their homework as citizens. All that having been said, I agree with da sentiment of BS-87 and vol_scouter. While Kony is a fellow who deserves a short drop and a sudden stop delivered by a noose, da real underlying issue for sub-saharan Africa is agriculture. With a rapidly expanded populace, weak or corrupt governance, and impending food crises arising from combinations of climate change and global market forces, it is likely inevitable that Africa over the coming years is goin' to erupt in tribal violence. How much of that is our responsibility? Some, to be sure, since we've contributed in our own way to some of da causes, and cut back severely on agriculture aid when it would have mattered. But enough to justify military interventionism between warring tribes in an area of relatively low strategic import? At some point, rather than send our sons and daughters, those who feel a calling to help in that region should perhaps buy themselves some gear and head over as volunteers. If they took more time to truly learn da language and customs and economic situation and such, they might even do a lot better than a bunch of our kids sent on short notice. Still, da President should follow the law, and in this case the law tells him to intervene. I've always thought that it should be required that any law passed by da Congress should apply first to the members of Congress and their families. It means more when you're sendin' your own son or daughter, taxing your own earnings, cutting your own health care. Beavah

Yah, I was just thinkin' about economic bubbles and such. Generally speaking, they have certain characteristics, eh? They start with some good investment ideas that are successful, gradually the success is noticed and others join in. Others joinin' in makes things seem more successful, though really da fundamentals are getting less sound. Da seeming success draws more people, and some start becoming "true believers." As da bubble nears the end of its run, da early investors have backed away and started to hedge, but da "true believers" double down, claiming "this time is different, this time is special, etc." Increasingly, the justifications become less rational and more emotional. In the end, the thing is supported only by da increasingly irrational "believers" and those doubling down to the point of fraud. And then it collapses. Based on that description, I think that "modern conservativism" has almost all da characteristics of a bubble. We'll have to wait and see, of course. It's hard to predict exactly when a bubble is goin' to collapse. They're always easier to view in hindsight. Don't know why I thought of that, maybe I've been lookin' at too much economic data these days in a market that should be played short. Da thoughts sorta coalesced while reading in disgust about da Catholic bishop of Kansas City, a high-and-mighty theological "conservative" by all accounts, who was indicted for once again covering up child pornography by a priest. Da Catholic folks on the list will have to describe how it's possible, after all the pain their church in da states has been through, for a fellow to be that callously daft. Makes all da obnoxious things we Protestant types have been sayin' about your hierarchy ring true. For my part, I can't help but think that modern "conservativism", in all of its forms (religious and secular) is due for a collapse. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)