Callooh! Callay!1428010939

I don't know what the perfect parent's response would be to the "Perfect SM's" instructions. But I can think of a reasonable response (albiet one that departs from the example in assuming that the parent has thought about and learned about the issues at hand more than the parent in the example). So here's what we're told is The Perfect SM's reply: "He's the youth leader of your son's patrol, the Rattlesnakes. The patrol is the building block of the troop, the core group that your son is a part of. Here's his name and number. Have your son call him.")-------- Parent: "The core group that my son is a part of[?]" You are mistaken SM. My son's core group is our family. His patrol is a team in which he will participate in order to learn by working with his team mates and leaders, and we hope eventually as a leader himself. We hope that from experience with other leaders in action and from leading he will learn that being a leader isn't being a dictator who lays down the law as to how the team will run, nor is it isolating the team from influences outside the leader's control. We want him to learn that being a leader means understanding a mission, communicating that understanding to and with others, and working with and motivating the team to develop and execute plans to accomplish the mission. In this case the overarching mission is to prepare him and his team mates "to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." If you believe that part of that mission includes weening boys away from what you believe is an overly close knit family environment - or if you believe that as SM, your judgment is superior to a parent's judgment on whether or not his sons are getting enough or the right kind of adult association, then your troop is not our troop. I read in a post on an internet forum channeling the "Perfect SM" that "every conversation, handled properly, can be an educational experience." But since the post was channeling the 'Perfect SM' I wondered if all the learning was intended to be one way." (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

I'm with the conformists on this one. It's a uniform, not a costume. And here's another thing about custom patrol names/patches.... Creativity is wonderful - and I appreciate acerbic and irreverent humor. But I cringe at jokey patrol names.... -Come on gentlemen, irreverent humor is fun, but in the big picture, a scout is reverent. Your patrol name is not the time and place to display mordant, caustic, or scatological wit. Fun? Yes! But with a sense of decorum and pride. And please - spare me the funny patrol yells - they are not funny after the gazillionth time... oh yea, I forget - to you they are.. - come on guys, grow a prefrontal cortex!" (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Alabama Scouter - The SM in your example sounds like a Helicopter Scouter being cute with a parent. If he had recommended an info source (inside the handbook - online) and then recommend to the mother that she let the boy work it out himself through his PL, that'd be nice - recommended that is - not insisted or directed. On the other hand - let's look at the SM's side of the story and take his tone in describing it.... His interlocutor in your example was "exasperated." This probably ruffled the SM's feathers and he momentarily lost the cool composure and social grace we all know are the hallmarks of a man who never doubts that his judgment is superior to that of parents when it comes to how HIS scouts approach scouting. - After all, this impertinent fool of a parent was either unpardonably ignorant or had an arrogantly inflated idea of her role in her son's development. Who does she think she is to so blasphemously desecrate the sacred Patrol Method? So, Helicopter Scouters, let this parent's impertinence be a lesson to you. Be ever vigilant against the crippling influence of parents, lest they taint the purity of your sacred patrol method and thereby prevent the delicate flowers that are YOUR scouts from blossoming. But here, I am compelled to confess that I have violated the sanctity of the patrol method and strayed from the path of scout-led purity. When my Webelos Scout sons were fixin' to become Boy Scouts, I brought them to the Scout Shop myself and bought new uniforms for them. I didn't send them to their PL to see about acquiring uniforms. I'm so sorry. But it gets worse... I was going to show them how to sew (rather than sending them to their PL to learn to sew) and have them sew on their own patches. I sewed on all my own patches from as early as when I was a Webelos Scout (and I sewed them uphill, in the snow, both ways). However, it was my grandmother, not my PL, who taught me how to sew. So I guess the stain of violating the sacred Patrol Method is a trait that goes way back among trash like us. I suppose there is now a patrol leader whose development will be forever stunted because my sons didn't ask him how to sew. But it gets even worse... Their mother and my wife (who happily are the same one person) vetoed the idea. She said the shirts are expensive and the fabric doesn't look like it'll hold up well to experimental sewing and possible patch movings and removings. I didn't agree, but I acquiesced and she sewed their patches (and mine too). I figured it wasn't worth arguing or even wanting to argue over. After all, they have, and will continue to have and to seize many opportunities to do things for themselves and for others. (and they did learn to sew - using the term loosely - from a different useful project). So anyway... lighten up Francis. You don't have to shield your precious little scouts from every parental intrusion into the sanctity of your scout-led isolation chamber. They're hardier than you think.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

I agree with the gist of Life-Scout-Ldr's comments above. I'm neither needy nor niggardly, but I don't feel receptive to FOS solicitations. I donate time, energy, and money as it is. The church covers our unit's costs and they told me we don't have to pay anything - not even registration. They've never asked me for a dime. They're even insistent about reimbursing me when I buy materials for scout projects - (but when I let them reimburse, my wife scolds me - so I don't do it much). But I understand money must come from somewhere and assume it comes from tithing to the church. And we're not members of the church so we don't tithe there. So we donate a sum of money yearly. My intent is to donate more than it costs the unit to have my sons as members but since I don't know what all the costs are, I lean toward overestimation. I'd donate more if they told me the unit had financial trouble - but they tell me the budget is fine and the treasury fat. BadenP commented earlier that the "chasm between professional and volunteer scouting is growing wider and wider each year." I haven't been around to see that. I was a scout back in the 70's and a scouter only the last couple years. I wondered if my impressions of that same chasm BadenP points out were merely the result of my only having seen the scout side of things before. But I get the impression he's right about this. I don't know enough about it to say whether or not the growth of professional scouting is a good thing. I understand the need for paid scouting employees to keep the program strong. And it doesn't bother me that a number of senior executives have salaries that put their households well into the top 5 percent of household incomes in the US. I hope they are worth it. But from what I know so far, I figure volunteers who already donate much time and effort should be comfortable ignoring solicitations for donations of more money to levels beyond their units.

I vote full. But if it must be half, we have an important decision to make... Should we wear the right half so that we keep "Boy Scouts of America" over the pocket? Or should we wear the left half so that we keep the council patch and troop number on the left shoulder? (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

I have a nice fixed blade knife. It feels like a quality hand tool should... a joy to use... handy size too. But I rarely use it because I find my Leatherman multi-tool more convenient to carry. The Leatherman is with me pretty much every day. Around here, they say fixed blades are forbidden for scouting. They use the term "sheath-knives." But I understand that they don't mean my folding Leatherman even though it does have a sheath. I suppose if someone wanted to be cute they could walk around with a gladius w/o a sheath - "See? No sheath... it's not a sheath knife." I haven't argued the point w/ anyone... haven't even asked exactly what rule this is that forbids them. Maybe I'm becoming too agreeably compliant... ...first, they came for the fixed blade knife carriers, and I said nothing because I carry a folder. ....then, they came for the bare headed and, I said nothing because I prefer to wear a hat ....then, they came for the open-toed shoe wearers and strung me up by my Tevas because there was no one left to stand up for me - all the fixed blade carrying, bare headed guys had been taken away. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"Such drama!" Thanks brother. ...and FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that there is an official nationwide system that mandates the discipline the poster was worried about. But it's apparent that in the poster's neck of the woods there is some sort of system be it within policy or without that... oh never mind - I will follow your sage advice: "Here's an idea - get real... go take some boys camping." That is, of course, exactly what you were doing when you posted it from your Blackberry during that brief period when you were hiking through an area with coverage right?

The point I apparently obscured with that apparently fascinating distraction about ROTC, FFA, and 4-H at the end of my post was this: That angst in the thread from which this was spun... angst over the purchase of a merit badge w/o proper authorization and documentation... with words like "defamed," "wrongdoing," "misconduct," and "disciplinary action" employed. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it didn't seem like the OP was using hyperbole promiscuously, being sarcastic or otherwise fooling around with how they presented their ideas or point of view (as some of us are prone to do - I'm guilty as charged on that count). I typically don't go to internet forums to read or share stories of romance, tragedy, or emotional uplift. But, that poster's writing communicated genuine emotional distress (that's how I read it anyway). I noticed that distress, felt a little sympathy and was bit peeved that someone would threaten the poster over such an issue (or even make an issue of it at all really). Now, maybe the poster overreacted or maybe they were just having us on (people do). But I took them at their word and it seems a shame that they're dealing with a system in which people treat other people like that - "disciplinary action" for buying a merit badge? Yea, I guess it's odd to be troubled over such a thing, as we do have far greater troubles in the world to concern us. But this trouble brings to mind the thinking that is behind it, the Helicopter Scouter mindset. It's behind some other disgruntlements we see tooth-aching their way around, so I figured I'd point it out. A Helicopter Scouter mentality metastasized in that community to such an extent that merit badge controls went beyond old-school micro-management and harnessed the power of nano-management (thus the reference to nanotech that one respondent to the original post mentioned he/she didn't see as connected). ----------- Now, regarding the distraction of the ROTC, FFA, 4-H thing that apparently was more interesting than the topic I intended to address: After the first two responses to the post that started this thread I penned the response below and had some difficulty posting it - new account, password not what I thought I had typed. Then my schedule took me away from this little fireside chat. Anyway here is what I was going to reply to the fist couple inquiries about the study: "Confused author. Espenshade and Radford crunched the numbers in this study: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9072.html -The quote is from a review Neili (also of Princeton) wrote of the study. There has been some controversy over the data. Espenshade himself seems to have been uncomfortable with what his data suggest to others. It's a controversial subject, preferences and discrimination on racial, religious, and cultural bases for college admissions. It wasn't my intention to open that particular can of worms. It's just that the idea of pushing Eagle as a possible positive discriminator for college admissions reminded me of this. As scouting defies changing cultural norms (the gay issue for example - it's the issue that some universities offered as their reason for keeping ROTC of campus), it may invite ostracism from some spheres." (end original reply) So that's what I was going to post but now it's OBE and all got figured out without any effort on my part. And then, boy howdy, does this campfire transmogrify into an auto-da-fe right quick. Already I'm admonished for offering vague admonishments, unmasked as a troll, debunked as a poster "who can't be bothered to take the time to learn what it's all about," and who makes "assertions based on zero facts." That's high praise, and I'm not so humble that I won't own up to it mostly fitting on most counts. Thanks for noticing but don't have high expectations. I may have gussied up my first post with a lot of fancy sarcasm, hyperbole, assertions based on zero facts, and knuckle dragging culture warrior stuff. But really it's nothing personal. It's just ideas expressed in an acerbic style. Yea, I know... you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. But who wants flies? Not the lively bunch that have read this far; no sir, this is a no fly zone and I been shot down. Anyway... back to distraction, that research about college admissions (not the subject of my post, but apparently was more interesting)... it's controversial and the controversy predictably splits along partisan political lines. On one side of that debate we find, as has already been pointed out, "culture warrior from the right makes spurious claims." On the other side of the debate from those knuckle dragging mouth breathers, we find dispassionate, cerebral, fair-minded empiricists who dismiss the spurious claims of culture warriors because those claims are spurious and we know they are because they are made by culture warriors who make spurious claims. As a paid-up member of the ladies-culture-warrior-auxiliary (I couldn't pass the unsubstantiated assertion test to get into the crack culture warrior hit sqaud), I cede this field and I admit the indictment; I really "can't be bothered to take time to learn what it's all about." So let it be known henceforth that it is a spurious claim to say that some institutions of higher learning are manned (or rather, peopled) with decision makers who hold low opinions of ROTC, FFA, and 4-H; and it is furthermore especially spurious... (Is that proper usage? can something be spuriouser than just plain spurious? or would "especially spurious" connote a particular spuriousness rather than a greater degree thereof?)... ahem, that is also spurious and knuckle dragging-ly culture-warrior-ish to sling around vague references to data one thinks might support one's foolish culture warrior prejudiced inkling that membership in ROTC, FFA, or 4-H, might degrade one's standing in the eyes of the aforementioned decision-makers at some institutions of higher learning.

Helicopter Scouter-ism has harnessed nano-technology and applied it to the old concept of small potatoes. Now we can make federal case over whether or not someone has earned a merit badge they buy. See here: http://www.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=321335 and we can have "restricted" blue cards" http://www.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=320761&p=3 what's next? witnesses, attorneys, and notaries for the signatures? Military items aren't controlled like this. You can buy and wear nearly any gewgaw you like. But that doesn't make you more accomplished or experienced; it may make you a fraud. If other folks are fooled... who cares much about impressing fools? "...a parent is sneaking in advancement under false pretenses" ....sneaking advancement to what? Fraud? And how would we know it was false pretense? Because it was a parent? Non-parents can cheat too. Parents might cheat, scouts might cheat, scouters might cheat, and Tim Geithner might have difficulty using Turbo-Tax. But honestly, do we think these boys don't know whether or not they've earned their spurs? They know it ain't the hat that makes the cowboy. And the fakes will feel small when a real one shows up. Tell them that. They'll get it... or not. Helicopter Scouters' overprotective impulses kick in here and they want safeguards in place to shield the poor innocent (or maybe not) scout from his parents' unrelenting pushing. But integrity can be a lonely road. You can't walk it for someone no matter how much you think unjust barriers have been put in his way. You and your intricate procedures won't be around to protect that scout's integrity forever. They will deal with their own monsters... or not. Back in the day, we might worry that production of ersatz Eagle Scouts would debase the rank's currency. But if the complaints about that are half true, that horse may have already left the barn. Anyway, at the rate progressives are bringing us progress, today's scouts might be better off not mentioning they were scouts at all when it comes time for applications to schools and jobs. A recent study found that "while most extracurricular activities increase your odds of admission to an elite school, holding a leadership role or winning awards in organizations like high school R.O.T.C., 4-H clubs and Future Farmers of America actually works against your chances." (you can guess why - and if you doubt the findings, you can google up Russell Neili's research and judge his methodology yourself). It wouldn't surprise me to see BSA joining that list; it's as good an organization as those others are. That could even be a good thing if word got out... paranoia about cheating might wither.