firstpusk

I am shocked by the delay in SM conferences. In my tenure as SM, I often had conferences with the boys that were formal even though they had not completed requirements for the next rank. This was especially true when they were not advancing. Kinda touch base. Let them give me a feel for what was going on. Sometimes there would be a reason and we had something to work with. The same with boards of review, although that was much more rare. We never viewed it as a high pressure testing situation. When I signed off on rank requirements, they were ready for the board.

One thing that is helpful is to get your hand on questions appropriate for board of review. Some troops will assemble examples. This can help with keeping the board on track. The other thing I would say is in an ideal world "Mr. Star" should not be asked to do another board and the boy should be given another board asap. An apology would be in order also.

I think I have seen documentary footage of your BOR process...

BRIDGEKEEPER:

Stop!

Who would cross the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.

LAUNCELOT:

Ask me the questions, bridgekeeper. I am not afraid.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

What... is your name?

LAUNCELOT:

My name is 'Sir Launcelot of Camelot'.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

What... is your quest?

LAUNCELOT:

To seek the Holy Grail.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

What... is your favourite colour?

LAUNCELOT:

Blue.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

Right. Off you go.

LAUNCELOT:

Oh, thank you. Thank you very much.

ROBIN:

That's easy!

BRIDGEKEEPER:

Stop! Who approacheth the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.

ROBIN:

Ask me the questions, bridgekeeper. I'm not afraid.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

What... is your name?

ROBIN:

'Sir Robin of Camelot'.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

What... is your quest?

ROBIN:

To seek the Holy Grail.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

What... is the capital of Assyria?

[pause]

ROBIN:

I don't know that! Auuuuuuuugh!

BRIDGEKEEPER:

Stop! What... is your name?

GALAHAD:

'Sir Galahad of Camelot'.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

What... is your quest?

GALAHAD:

I seek the Grail.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

What... is your favourite colour?

GALAHAD:

Blue. No, yel-- auuuuuuuugh!

BRIDGEKEEPER:

Hee hee heh. Stop! What... is your name?

ARTHUR:

It is 'Arthur', King of the Britons.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

What... is your quest?

ARTHUR:

To seek the Holy Grail.

BRIDGEKEEPER:

What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

ARTHUR:

What do you mean? An African or European swallow?

BRIDGEKEEPER:

Huh? I-- I don't know that. Auuuuuuuugh!

BEDEVERE:

How do know so much about swallows?

ARTHUR:

Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

[suspenseful music]

[music suddenly stops]

[intermission]

[suspenseful music resumes]

My first son at his Eagle Court, my mother, my mother-in-law and my wife with tears in their eyes.

My younger son and all the other scouts making me proud of the teamwork they built on JLTC staff this summer. It is good being Course Director.

On the St. Croix, watching an eagle almost take a fish within 15 feet of the canoe of two of the younger scouts. My brother and I were the sweep and we chuckled as the scouts stopped paddling and talking stared in absolute awe.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

Training boy leaders to run their troop is the Scoutmasters most important job.

Train Scouts to do the job, then let them do it.

Somebody alot smarter than me put it better - B.P., of course!

"The boys should be responsible for as much as they can handle!"

Exactly! And the adults should be able to handle staying out of their way to allow the process of self-discovery. Guidance is the key. They don't get this without help - but they won't get it with too much help either.

I think it is always advisable to start with a patrol outing. They handle an easy bike or canoe outing. You are involved with the planning to ensure health and safety. Ask them questions and have one of them make a list of what is needed. The patrol leader splits up the work and sets a timeline. I have seen some really neat outings come together in short order this way.

It even works for the new patrol if you have an experienced troop guide lead this discovery process. Talk about building self-reliance in the new scouts...

Bob you are on the money here. Canoeing safety relies on the capability of all participants. That is why the certified lifeguard requirement is in GSS for those that have not passed the swimmer's test.

In situations on rivers, even those without white water, there are tricky currents, strainers, bridge peirs, deadheads and your own swamped canoe that you must keep in mind. The wise leader also insists on the capability of effective self rescue for all scouts and scouters participating.

As someone who has been certified as a BSA lifeguard for nearly all of my leadership tenure, it is important to understand your limitations. If you are trying to make a swimming rescue without proper training, you have already made a series of mistakes and/or misjudgements that could endanger yourself and others. If you are trying to attempt the same thing having been trained it is still a very dangerous undertaking.

I am a strong swimmer and have been well trained and carry the requisite certifications. Yet, any person I have had in my canoe has been trained to take care of themselves before they get on the water. I don't care if they already are a swimmer. This way, I am able to be prepared to help all the other participants.

Padre, I am sorry to hear that you have such a negative view of WB. The staff on the course I attended promoted an unofficial "ticket item" - committing yourself to spending regularly scheduled time with your spouse. Dating if you will. They wanted you to talk about what you are doing for scouts and what you might plan to do. I have tried to follow that advice. Once a commitment is made, the dates need to go on the calendar. The commitment is a shared decision. I won't say yes to anything significant without consulting her.

This allowed me to act as course director/SM for one of my council's JLTC's this year. I am grateful for the support that she offers me. I know that I have made a difference and my wife shares an equal measure of the credit. She is so good to me that she refused the half a plaque I offered her. ;^)

P.S. to matuawarrior, Congrats on getting asked to be on WB staff. This is a tremendous opportunity to deliver the promise.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

My Dragonfly, stovetop espresso pot and fresh ground coffee.

The thought of such a thread brings a tear of joy to my eye. My favorite is salsa verde...my own home made, of course!

I agree with you eisely - fun, outdoors and values are great and at the core of the program. But the most important thing is that the boys decide and they lead. This kind of opportunity changes an underconfident boy into a man committed to good citizenship. It is a program that really makes a difference.

Ed,

My deepest sympathy in the loss of you and your scouts and scouters. I have lost three fine young men the same way over the years. One was in my troop , one I worked with on district events and the third was a camp staffer over a number of years. Each was a wonderful person that touched my life and the lives of my scouts. When you give so much to youth, it makes such even more painful.

You and all of your folks are in our prayers here in Minnesota. My God grant peace of spirit in this time of terrible loss.

Youngblood,

I am glad you were given the book. I take it you went to it to try to find something to justify your position.

'I will quote exactly out of the book I was given at camp school, " b. Policy determination and application". '

Your quote is a heading, a fragment of a sentence, not even a complete thought. Generally, I expect that the beach director will have read a little further and put a little more thought into "policy" than that. There are many things that someone in charge can insist on when they are given authority. There are a lot of things that I "have always been told..." that turn out to be wrong or poorly thought out.

You might just determine that "policy" on "your" waterfront. The problem is that the scouters in the original post actually thought folks like you knew what you were talking about. They thought the boy could not wear goggles or clips during a swimmer's test. You indicated that you could not understand how someone could disagree with your position. You are adding requirements that are not in policy without a clear explanation to the leaders that you have departed from the written test requirements and the clarifications of those requirements. The GSS does not back you, the Camp School sentence fragment quoted does not back you. You do have some unnamed always been told authority whose qualifications I could not begin to judge and your requirement defies logic. Beyond the fact that you confuse the requirements misrepresent the authority you base it on and want to interpret requirements any way you see fit, I see no problem with your "policy".

"I will ask this question once more. I address this question to anyone in opposition to AquatDir and my policy on the issue. If you discover that a boy cannot pass the swim test unless he is wearing goggles and a nose clip, are you going to classify him as a swimmer and permit the boy to participate in all aquatic activites(boating, sailing, waterskiing, swimming in crowded areas, etc...) at camp?"

First, with all due respect, neither you nor AquatDir have the authority to set BSA policy. That is done by the BSA. It is true, that you are charged with interpreting these policies. You need to approach this task in a more practical and less hypothetical manner. There are many conditions under which I could "discover" that a boy could not complete the test by adding requirements that aren't in policy or by pressurizing the situation.

It should have already been made clear to you that medical professionals may require a boy to use clips, goggles or earplugs when swimming. I do not believe you are qualified to judge on medical necessity.

On the safety issue, if the boy swims strongly with them, it is our task as scout leaders to build on that competence. The kid that you deny because of this kind of gear is probably a first year. Scoutmasters have a task of training boy's to self-reliance. Finding ways to build on the positive are a lot stronger than negating a strong performance on a basis that is dubious at best.

I have worked the beach every year I have gone to camp with my troops. There are many reasons that boys don't pass a swim check. Worked many hundreds of them over the years. I have never seen the goggle panic you are so concerned about. Seen a lot of boys take their check with either goggles or clips. If I saw the negative reaction you are talking about, it is a time to bring in more resources. Scoutmasters, parents, chaplain to try to find a way to build confidence to go with the competence that boy has already shown with the goggles.

I asked both you and AquatDir to look at the GSS testing requirements and their explanation. It was pretty clear to me what the GSS means by "aids". Can you explain to me how the googles give more power in the sroke or support a swimmer trying to start, turn or change strokes? If you can't, admit that you have gone beyond BSA policy and give the kids a break.

AquatDir and Youngblood,

I understand your position and respect the job you do. I have been a scoutmaster for a dozen years and carried the BSA Lifeguard certification almost as long.

I must agree with Bob White. Go to the Guide to Safe Scouting and read the section on Classification of Swimming Ability. The word aids appears twice and assistance once. In each of these occasions, they are refering to the ability of the person to either start the initial stroke, change strokes or turn. They describe aids as things like easing into the water, using a ladder, the bottom, the dock, etc.

The intent of the test is to determine whether the person can demonstrate an ability to swim continuously without aid. I think you interpretation is tortured at best.

Please, go back and read the material. The boys taking this test do not need undue stress or unwarrented requirements added. If they can swim effectively and confidently with or without goggles and clips, they are a swimmer.

As for the original question from jps. The Guide makes it clear. Read it and share it with your fellow scouters. If the staff at the beach is wrong on a policy, it would not be the first time in my experience.

hops_scout,

The name of this forum is Issues & Politics. Kind of a free for all for issues that may or may not be directly related to scouts. I would suggest that the strong emphasis on citizenship in scouting would provide more than enough justification for these discussions. If you don't approve of the discussion, don't get involved.

You forgot,

"Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I am free at last!"

Although we generally have disagreed here, I think we do agree on a lot more than one might expect. I too think that scouting is a great program, yet have my reservations. We also agreed on Emeril. "Pork fat RULES!"

I wish you well and good luck.

Rooster7,

The first thing I want you to understand is that I want Saddam Hussein gone. I wanted him gone in the early 80's when GW's dad viewed him as an ally. We aided them and encouraged the oil kingdoms to aid him. He was our guy right up to the time he went into Kuwait.

There has been no solid connection established between bin Laden and Iraq. Stories were floated but they have not panned out.

Is the US partly responsible for the problem in Iraq. Yes, their programs for chemical and biological weapons were aided by the US during the Iran-Iraq war.

"So I guess you expect them to ignore whatever their intelligence reports say (a strategy that Clinton apparently embraced), pretend 9-11 never happened, pretend that Hussein will be our friend, and stick their collective heads in the ground and join the rest of the liberals. If Clinton had half the brains hat Bush possesses, Bin Laden would have been apprehended years ago and 9-11 might well have never happened. But hey, he stood for a peaceunfortunately, while he managed to craft an image of himself, his efforts didn't help anyone in the WTC."

9-11 happened, no one has linked Iraq to it in any way. Clinton did not stick his head in the sand. It is interesting that the one of the first thing Bush did was to tell the FBI to leave the Saudis alone. The same Louis Freeh FBI conservatives were lauding for going after Clinton dropped the ball in Mpls and Phoenix. You of course will believe anything GW says. But why did he and his administration threaten everyone about investigating 9-11? Why did he seek to appoint the master liar and unindicted war criminal Henry K to investigate? And why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial a couple months before 9-11?

I am not saying they intentionally allowed it to happen, but I think you and your so-called "liberal" media would be screaming bloody murder if this had occurred on Clinton's watch.

kwc57

I share your concern. I was not unhappy to see us go in to Afganistan. That government was certainly much worse for its people and was actively promoting terrorism.

The case for Iraq is not so clear cut. Certainly they have been aggressive. Certainly they have murdered their own citizens. It is interesting to say the least that most of the examples people trot out occurred when they were our ally.

Speaking of allies, why the go it alone mentality?

Are we taking our eye off of the ball to gratify a family grudge. Are we forgetting about our borderless enemy - terrorists. Beyond that, it is clear that we have a lot of fence mending to do in the middle east. I am not sure how starting a war that is dubiously connected with terrorism helps that situation. Especially when no one in the world with the exception of Tony Blair supports us.

This all coming from an administration that came in saying it was not going to be actively involved in the peace process and was not concerned about nuclear non-proliferation.

"No man is an island intire of itselfe, every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is lesse, as well as if a promontorie were, as well as if a mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any man's death diminshes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

from

John Donne's Devotions #17

"If you say the Scout Oath, add hypercritical to that list."

Sorry Rooster7,

There has been far too much talk of dictionary definitions, but, here we go again...

Hypercritical - adj, Overly critical.

Hypocritical - adj, Characterized by hypocrisy.

That being said, I will add HYPERCRITICAL to the scout law the next five times I recite it.

le Voyageur,

My sincerest thanks for the years of effort you have given the scouting program. I have talked with other volunteers that have come to the same conclusion. Each and every time I hear it, it profoundly saddens me. I understand your decision and wish you the best. The organization is the lesser for your departure. The bell tolls again. Did you hear it? Did you understand?

"Media bias concerns what is reported AND what is NOT reported. Eisely's post had to do with the latter."

The article exemplified the latter. Kind of the pot calling the polished silver tea service black. The article asserts that the two situations are comparable yet does not give the context for the remarks, so how is the reader to know. Clark appeared to be addressing Falwell's remarks. Likely answering a question.

"I don't follow the argument you are trying to make. What facts should have been checked? And are you saying the size of the audience determines whether the utterance should be scrutinized? Falwell -- big TV audience -- outrage across the land. Clark -- small audience -- who cares? Is that your take?"

The Journal is making a charge of bias. They are responsible to support such an accusation. Instead all we have is an out of context quote and some information about web hits. If Clark's audience is small enough, it doesn't get covered. You tell me, exactly why did Clark say what he did? I can make an educated guess, but the Journal did not do their job. Instead they took a cheap shot and you sucked it in with a straw - PROOF, PROOF OF LIBERAL BIAS!

"In my opinion Falwell is in it for the money and Clark is in it for the notoriety, but this thread is about the presence or absence of media bias."

That is exactly why I remarked about the humor of eisely's posts. The Journal piece is textbook propaganda presented as reporting. You and eisely accept the report at face value because it conforms to your personal bias.

frankj,

Then the Journal's Art section is infected with the same lousy standards ast the editorial page. I don't give a rip if a reporter, columnist or editor is liberal or conservative. What I do expect is some standard of professionalism. Comparing the two situations is tenuous at best. Falwell was on a highly rated national news magazine for a major network in prime time. Clark was making an appearance that was not reaching anywhere near that audience. Also, it appears he was addressing Falwell's remark. The nicest thing one could say about it is that it was lazy journalism, i.e., some flack brings you the story and you print it without checking facts.

Yes, the Journal can generally spell correctly on the editorial page and I guess their Arts section. In that way, the paper is not lousy. But in terms of good reporting and writing, giving the reader what they need to make up their own mind, they are lousy in this case.

If you and eisely can't read something with a critical eye because you agree with it, that is all the worse for you.

eisely,

TV news is the scourge of decent journalism in our age. FOXnews is the nadir. They distort - we deride.

"So, we have a "reactionary" on the USSC I'd agree, but note that from my position on the political spectrum that it's not Justice Scalia"

Just for grins, who is your pick for reactionary US Supreme Court Justice?

"Finally, your contempt of conservative values and those who hold them is noted. I would hope however that while you hold Justice Scalia and his legal opinions in contempt, you might at least display a touch of respect for the POSITION which he holds."

I wouldn't class his work as reactionary or conservative. It is better classified as opportunistic and political. He is best identified by the label he has always applied with such contempt to those he opposed. Antonin Scalia is a judicial activist of the first order and as such, he embodies hypocracy on the US Supreme Court. He should be the first to "display a touch of respect for the POSITION which he holds."