GaHillBilly

"The easiest way to boost mileage is to replace your wheels with smaller diameter wheels. You can drive faster AND get better mileage."

FScouter, I hope you realize that there are plenty of folks out there that will not realize that you are joking! (I trust that you ARE joking! But, I'm a little worried. When I Googled around about to verify that odometers worked as I thought, I discovered that there are quite a few car owners, and particularly Prius owners, who are apparently quite serious about such suggestions.)

Anyhow, smaller wheels -- or lower profile tires -- on most vehicles will not necessarily increase your apparent speed, though they will increase your apparent gas mileage.

Of course, once you make such a modification, you'll need to use a GPS to determine your ACTUAL speed, and ACTUAL gas mileage, since neither your odometer nor your speedometer will read accurately any longer.

GaHillBilly

Evmori,

You are assuming that demand for gasoline and oil is limited to physical users of those commodities. As a result, you are looking at declining US physical demand and reaching the plausible, but mistaken, conclusion that gas prices are moving counter to demand.

In fact, demand for most commodities includes physical users + commodity brokers + investors + speculators. In the current world market, with the declining US dollar and Middle Eastern and West African political instability, oil prices are being driven in large part by investor and speculator "demand".

This was one reason that the Saudi's cited for declining Bush's request to significantly increase oil supply. They produce a 'heavy' oil that is not preferred for gasoline production. One of their royals was quoted as saying that oil production was adequate for physical demand now, and that they weren't going to engage in storing excess oil in off-shore tankers.

GaHillBilly

You're talking more about the recession and real estate crisis than gas prices, I think. And, in the short term, those are the bigger issues.

But long term, I think fuel prices are what will reform US society in rather profound ways.

Cheap autos (relatively) and cheap cars drove the 'suburbanization' of the post WWII America. Auto travel replaced public transportation and walking. For over 50 years, we've been building roads without sidewalks and pulling up rails.

But all of those trends have depended on cheap gas, and cheap gas is gone. No matter how you look at it, cheap gas (under $5/gal in current dollars) is done for. Current world economic dynamics pretty much guarantee that nothing short of a global depression -- not just a recession -- will reverse the upward trend for fuel costs.

We won't lack for fuel: even without biofuels, Canada and the US have absolutely HUGE reserves of oil in oil sands and shale. But, that's expensive oil to retrieve. Biofuels are expensive when not subsidized. New nuclear plants to provide electricity to generate hydrogen to power fuel cells are expensive. And, new oil refineries are expensive.

It's hard to say how all this will play out.

But, even in the short term, families are going to be less and less willing to drive long ($$$$) distances. It's already affecting competitive swimming and other sports. It will affect Scouting.

When it dawns on parents that putting their son in the troop around the corner, instead of the troop across town, could save $500 or more in fuel costs THIS YEAR some of them will push their sons to switch troops. And, when they realize that that same change is likely to save them $750 or even $1000 per year in the next couple of years . . .

As I've thought about this, I've reached two conclusions:

+ My son's troop needs to recruit locally, VERY locally. Friends of Scouts are not such good candidates any more, if they have to drive across town.

+ We need to make sure we've explored all the local camping, hiking and adventure opportunities before we try to make longer trips. At current gas prices, the troop's annual 800 mile round trip to spend the weekend on the Yorktown had far less takers than usual. It will be interesting to see whether they are even able put together a trip at all when prices reach $6 or $8 per gallon next year.

GaHillBilly

I think I'm giving the wrong impression here -- a Venture crew is NOT imminent in any way, shape or form.

My question really is more a case of considering my options, looking 3 moves ahead. I was really asking, "should I keep this in the back of my mind, and collect Venture info as I go?", or "should I dismiss it outright?".

One reason for asking is recruiting. The troop we're in is small, and getting smaller. There are some conflicts that I don't understand fully yet between the troop and the pack, with the result that rising Webelos are not coming into the troop.

OTOH, there are some groups we could recruit from, but one inevitable question will be, "Yes, but what about my daughter?"

In theory, a Venture Crew might be an answer.

The situation is such that right now little can be done, but once changes are possible things may move very, very fast indeed. My assumption is that preparation -- lots and lots of preparation -- might make it possible to make those changes rapidly AND well when the time comes.

So, please do NOT think I'm about to rush out and tackle the formation of a Venture crew. It ain't happening!

GaHillBilly

"You might want to contact your District Commissioner and ask to have a cup of coffee with the UC who has Venturing in his portfolio... or ask who the go-to person is in your Council for Venturing."

Not yet -- all this is just info for me to file in my hip-pocket, so to speak.

We're in a troop that's facing a leadership crunch within 12 - 18 months. The 3 most active leaders, including the SM, all have sons that are either inactive, going inactive or soon to Eagle out. Because of the history of the troop, none of these older boys have the skills to be guides or junior leaders, so that's not an option, either. (Honestly, they are really in the way, for those of us who want to the boys to actually have the skills their badges require. Currently, two of the older swimming MB holders can't pass the summer camp swim test (1st class swimming) without fudging!)

Some of us with younger boys are reading the writing on the wall, and trying to think ahead.

There are some teens, a bit older than my son, who seem to want to have the skills, rather than just the ranks and badges. They could be a real asset to a re-directed troop. Venturing, as a parallel activity, might make it possible to keep them longer, and to possibly add some of their friends.

But, all this is currently in the realm of speculation. All the normal issues of politics, hurt feelings, negative troop history, shaky relations with the CO, etc. apply.

GaHillBilly

"for the leaders it could be figured as "An hour a week, per Cub Scout" That, I think is a little more accurate."

Gee, and I was just talking to a guy last night who'd run a Pack with 100+ cubbies. I wonder how that worked?

Cubdemonium, no doubt ;-)

GaHillBilly

So, it sounds like it could be done, but might take some juggling of paper work, dual registration (as both a Scout and a Venturer) and so on, in order to fully take advantage of the overlap?

I'm assuming that nothing prohibits a Scout from being ALSO registered as a Venturer?

I assume that it would also mean declaring things like, "This is officially a Venturer trip, not a Scout trip.", in order to satisfy all the regulatory necessities.

GaHillBilly

This is sorta OT, but the responses about the lack of Venture crews reminded me of a question I've not been able to answer.

Is it possible for a Venture patrol to coexist / cooperate with Venture Crew, say by sharing trips, etc.?

The reason I ask is that I've already seen problems with trying to get or keep a Venture patrol going. It seems -- to my admittedly uninformed mind -- that it might be easier if a Venture patrol, within a well functioning troop, co-operated with a Venture crew, and shared trips and some functions with them.

It seems this might be a way to retain or gain a pool of junior leaders, to allow Scouts to do stuff with their girlfriends -- uh, Scout stuff that is -- and so on.

Is this possible?

Are there reasons why this can't, or shouldn't, be done?

GaHillBilly

Kudu,

I found your post very interesting, assuming that all your facts are indeed correct.

My son and I are new (15 months) to Scouting, and I have no prior experience with Scouting. Because we are evangelicals, and because I'm using Scouting as an element of my son's home school curriculum, I've been very interested in the relationship of Scouting to Christianity.

I was surprised to learn the degree to which Scouting could be 'customized' to reflect the religious message of the chartering organization, and have subsequently been interested to understand what philosophical and religious background Baden-Powell had, in order to come up with such an organization.

I haven't, as they say, 'gotten to the bottom of things' but my working guess has been that Baden-Powell was a great believer in the value of Judeo-Christian ethics, but had no particular belief in, nor commitment to, orthodox Christianity. His ethical concern appeared to arise from an almost imperial Roman desire to create good British citizens, capable of serving the British empire's needs effectively and courageously. He also, in the snippets I've found, appears to have drunk deeply at the fountain of what I've called "optimistic evolutionism" that was so popular and persuasive at the beginning of the 20th century.

Kudu, your observations and references appear to confirm all this.

What I find fascinating about all this is that neither a true Christian nor a true atheistic evolutionist could have created Scouting, since neither would have been open to employing religion as a mere tool in a quest to create better citizens. Had either an atheist or Christian tried to do so, they would likely have been able to do so only with the greatest hypocrisy and cynicism. Yet, I gather that Baden-Powell -- so far as he knew himself -- was neither hypocritical nor cynical.

All in all, it appears to me that Scouting is one of those fascinating historical occurrences, that could never have occurred at another time or at another place.

GaHillBilly

I think that a lot of kids today don't know what they want. They aren't self-analytical enough to realize that what they think they want isn't what they want.

But, I've seen repeatedly that kids pushed in the right way complain loudly at first, but then adjust and come to expect that they'll continue to do whatever it is. You need to keep in mind that many kids today carry extremely heavy workloads in terms of school and sports. Having had a son who was an 'elite' swimmer, my wife and I have concluded that that's the extreme dedication required for sports success today is not the best way to spend money or time. But nevertheless those sports successes reflect the efforts of some kids who work very hard and like it.

I think Scouting potentially offers kids something real and meaningful.

Our culture today makes it impossible for kid to say, yeah, give me some more work to do. But, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't feel the same satisfaction and sense of purpose people did in the past, once they are in the middle of it all.

GaHillBilly

"The *you have to make it fun for them* mantra gets repeated to me ad nauseum."

I think that for some Scout aged boys, this is true. It's certainly true for some church youth group attenders. But, it is absolutely NOT true for many of them, who want something 'real' to do. Some of them don't know that yet, but they know it when they experience it.

One problem I've seen -- not in Scouting, but in youth groups -- is that when you begin to get 'real', the kids who actually are in it only for the fun, fall or drop out. This rubs their parent's noses in tangible and visible evidence that their kids are not as great, as cool and as superior as they thought. I've seen parents sandbag effective youth programs apparently because these programs were 'exposing' their own kids.

I'm going to guess that some of the opposition from adults my originate in fears that if you 'get serious' their kids will be exposed in one way or another. In some cases, they will be pleasantly surprised. But in other cases, they won't, and hardly any parent likes to be faced with the facts of their child's failures and weaknesses.

GaHillBilly

"Ive always said that scout growth is only blocked by adult fears."

This is something I've griped about for years, primarily in a church youth group context. But, it took getting into Scouting to help me see how many ways I'd failed with my own oldest, in terms of helping him assume adult responsibilities as soon as he was ready.

"Eventually the scout develops to a point where the next step in his growth has to be an adult responsibility."

That's precisely what my hope and vision is, for any troop my son's in. To what degree I can help that happen, I don't know. But, I'm going to try as best I can.

"What we usually do is assign a boy to a job, and assign an adult coach."

The idea of adult Scouter as coach, rather than leader, has been missing in all the troops we visited, and in the two troops we've participated in. I don't think the adults in my son's current troop are necessarily opposed to that idea, but it's not what they've been thinking.

I should note that it appears that one of the problems leading to poor training of Scouts, is lack of real skills and preparation by adults. It's simply not possible to teach well what you haven't learned yourself. Not all adults find it easy to research a topic, gather information, and acquire a new skill on their own. I'm rapidly moving toward the conclusion that the long term success of a troop will require just as much effort in developing adults skills, as in developing youth skills. (Speaking strictly for myself, my personal knowledge of compass navigation and botany has increased 10-fold in the last year!)

"It's so easy to forget that a lad who has been active in the program for 5-6 years typically has a lot more field time and experience than the average adult."

Yes! Or, that's how it *should* be. I'm more and more convinced that some the older Scout / Eagle candidate inactivity I've seen is a direct result of the poor training they've received. They *know* they should be able to canoe, or do first aid, or whatever, but they can't because they only possess "merit badge college" skills!

Fortunately, we may be able resolve that issue, at least in my son's troop. A string of poor MB Colleges, along with some problems with unskilled Scouts in possession of summer camp MB's has brought things to a head. Two of the ASM's and I have tentatively agreed to come up with a list merit badges which may be earned at an MBC, including things like Fingerprinting, Pottery and Coin Collecting, and another list of of merit badges which should only be earned in-troop, including all the Eagle merit badges. We're also working on an annual 'curriculum' to teach these merit badges. The SM really doesn't have time to focus on the troop, but is very likely to not only go along with these changes, but to be enthusiastic about them.

. . . It is very, very encouraging to hear from some one like Eagledad, who appears to be succeeding in a troop that's doing things the right way. It helps keep me from thinking that a really good troop is simply impossible.

GaHillBilly

50 - 60 people?? Gee, I was thinking mini-bus, and you were talking school bus!

But, even with a school bus, you'll need TWO buses, not one. The full size buses used at the school where my wife teaches are pretty full with 45 elementary school kids WITHOUT gear. If you're able to get 30 people plus gear, I'd be a little surprised. Plus those bus seats get pretty uncomfortable pretty quickly.

Doing the math:

8 passenger vehicles averaging 7 people each @ 17 mpg for 100 miles works out to 47 gallons of gasoline, or $188 at $4/gallon. Cost per person, @ 56 people is $3.35.

2 diesel school buses, averaging 30 people each @ 7 mpg for 100 miles works out to 28.5 gallons, or $142.50 @ $5/gallon. Cost per person, @ 60 people, is $2.38.

Not any savings there that will get people all excited. You could probably save more getting some refrigerators and freezers to stock / save troop food.

And, I don't know where you camp, but getting a full size school bus into many of the places were we camp would take an exceptionally skilled driver, even when it's possible.

A couple of other comments . . .

CDL's: I've held a Class 2 CDL with all endorsements except tank trucks for about 15 years. The license wasn't that expensive 15 years ago, and I don't think it's terrible now, especially for just a bus or chauffeur's endorsement. Probably a Scouter ought to be reimbursed however. One caution: drivers who collect tickets should NOT get a CDL; it can cause problems all around.

15 passenger vans: These vans have rather weird handling, and are difficult to insure now (or so I've been told). Of the three vehicles mentioned (bus, Suburban, 15 seat van), I think the van is the hardest to drive safely under emergency conditions. By the way, a CDL is required for these vans.

Trailers: I've never been in an accident with a trailer, but I've had to do some advanced maneuvering on occasion with one. I think a heavy towing vehicle, with good tires and shocks, and a relatively light trailer is not hard to drive on the highway safely. Backing can take some practice, but if someone's willing to learn, they can. (Personally, I'd rather teach a woman who's not too scared, rather than a man who's all 'I got it'.)

Gas milage: Milage on gas-powered Suburban type vehicles is notably poor. But, drivers of work trucks and vans of similar weights running DIESEL engines have reported 15 - 18 mpg to me. If you figure 15 mpg Diesel (@ $5/gal), a 150 mile round trip is still only about $6 per person.

GaHillBilly

As an alternative, you might want to look at used diesel GMC Suburbans. These are 8/9 passenger vehicles with tremendous trailering capacity. No CDL, high ground clearance, anybody who's driven a full size pickup can drive them.

And . . . the price on these is falling like a rock.

I'm guessing that within the year you could pick up a couple of these -- good condition, 10 years old, ~80,000 miles -- for $8,000 for both, which is a fraction of what a good condition 16 passenger bus would cost. No real need to insure them beyond liability.

This is not something we've done in our small troop, just a gleam and hope in my eye.

GaHillBilly

" . . . science is the only "religion" that works even if you don't believe in it . . ."

Some of you are missing Merlyn_LeRoy's point.

In English, he's 'Merlin the King'. The 'real' Merlin served the King. But this Merlin serves no one: he IS himself the king of both knowledge and men.

Clearly, neither you -- any of you -- nor I, ignorant hillbilly that I am, are worthy to dispute his wisdom.

GaHillBilly

* Of all the king legends in history, the legend of Arthur is almost as Christological in form as the history of King David. Has anyone else noticed the irony of an avowed atheist adopting as 'nom de forum' the persona of Merlin, prophet and mentor of that most Christian king, Arthur?

I don't have them at hand right now, but there are quite a few 'interesting' quotes to be had from BP. I spent some time last year, digging around in the foundations of Scouting, to try to get a grip on how -- and whether -- it would help my son.

Like many social thinkers of his era, he was apparently attracted to what I've called the "optimistic evolutionism" of the era. This was expressed, in its more benign forms, in novels by Zane Grey, Edgar Rice Burrows (Tarzan), and Gene Stratton-Porter (Freckles). Less benign expressions include Ayn Rand's novels and most notably, the eugenics movement. The most terrible visible outworking of both "optimistic evolutionism" and eugenics was, of course, Hitler's Nazi regime.

BP actually spoke favorably of eugenics in at least one text. (Again, I've got it somewhere, but you might be able to locate it with Google Text.) He was in the company of many prominent people of the time, in this regard. Eugenics conferences and academic instruction at universities was supported by the Kellogg, Carnegie, Rockefeller and other foundations. Margaret Sanger, known as the founder of Planned Parenthood, was also a notable support. In the 20's and 30's, many people who thought well of eugenics, also viewed Nazism with at least partial favor, as BP may have done.

But, it's not clear to me how far BP went in his support of eugenics or Nazism. He died before eugenics lost favor in as the truth of the Nazi movement became known, so it's hard to say what he might have revised. An article by Christopher Hitchens in Atlantic Monthly (June 2004), attributes a number of pro-Nazi and pro-eugenics statements to BP. I am rather sceptical, however, since his article is not footnoted, and because I'm familiar statements he has made about Christianity that are transparently false, IF you happen to know the facts. It is interesting that, in a text called "The Progess of Eugenics", the following statement is made:

". . . Dr. Starr Jordan, the official head of American Eugenics, has consented . . . to become the Vice-President of the Boy Scouts in the United States . . ."

Anyhow, I am continually amused by the way that BP's writings appear to be used as a source of quotes to justify whatever a BSA or council staffer wishes. I'm have already begun a small collection of my very own BP quotes, to be used in my

'discussions'. Just for fun -- I'm not trying to make any particular point with these, other than to stir up a bit of a fuss ;-) -- I've posted a few below.

GaHillBilly

from B-P's Outlook (available online)

"I HAVE said before now: "I don't care a fig whether a Scout wears uniform or not so long as his heart is in his work and he carries out the Scout Law.""

Aug. 1913

"A BOY does not really get the value of the Scout training until he is a First-class Scout."

Feb. 1914

"AS the camping season is now upon us, I may say that one or two of the camps which I have already seen have been unfortunately on wrong lines, though others were very satisfactory. I strongly advise small camps of about half a dozen Patrols; each Patrol in a separate tent and on separate ground (as suggested in Scouting for Boys), so that the Scouts do not feel themselves to be part of a big herd, but members of independent responsible units."

Jun. 1910

"NOT long ago I was shown a pattern schoolboy camp where there were rows of bell-tents smartly pitched and perfectly aligned, with a fine big mess marquee and clean well-appointed cooks' quarters with a kitchen range.

There were brick paths and wooden bathing houses and latrines, etc.

It was all exceedingly well planned and put up by the contractor. The officer who organised it all merely had to pay down a certain sum and the whole thing was done. It was quite simple and businesslike.

My only complaint about it was that it wasn't camping. Living under canvas is a very different thing from camping. Any ass, so to speak, can live under canvas where he is one of a herd with everything done for him; but he might just as well stop at home for all the good it is likely to do him."

May 1919

"We have to remember that the Scoutmasters are voluntary play leaders in the game of Scouting, and not qualified school teachers, and that to give them a hard-and-fast syllabus is to check their ardour and their originality in dealing with their boys according to local conditions."

Nov. 1921

(I found this one particularly amusing, in the light of all the discussion here about the exact and regulated right way to do things!)

We put them as Christ taught them in their two simple forms:

"Love thy God with all thy heart;

And the second is like unto it ?

Love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.""

Jul. 1924

(Maybe BP did actually believe in Christian truth? This passage alone doesn't prove it of course, especially since his thought was not especially systematic or consistent. But it's enough to make me wonder.)

"I could live without a license, but I could never have lived with myself if I had to watch one of my kids die and I didn't try something."

Gee, I couldn't have said it better myself . . . whose side are you arguing for? Mine or yours?

It sounds like your wife's school has some heavy duty inclusion classrooms, which would increase the job requirements, compared to those that prevail at my wife's school.

But it also sounds like your wife is DOING much more than the defined job envisions. And you yourself described how she skirted, or even operated outside, the CYA restrictions that are in place.

What it doesn't sound like is that you are really supporting the validity of those restrictions, either for schools or Scouts, except in a purely legal CYA sense. If we were in court, as opposing witnesses, I think your side's attorney would be rolling his eyes right about now!

Please understand: I AM not advocating that an SM, who doesn't know which end of an EpiPen goes against the thigh, use one. Or that an SM who can't distinguish diphenyhydramine from psuedephedrine administer either. But I am saying that it appears that the REAL first aid and medical requirements of a troop that's actively outdoors reflect a 'learnable' and 'trainable' skill sit, that Scout leaders should see to acquire AND teach.

I also believe that the problem stems, in part, from the medical industry's successful effort to create an aura of expertise, unattainable by mortal men, around everything they do.

But this is nonsense.

MD's have to learn, and retain, enormous bodies of information about all sorts of things that have almost no relevance to Scouting. The medical and first aid skills and info needed by Scouters represents a tiny subset of what MD's have to acquire. So, it's no great feat for Scouters to acquire that knowledge, if they are willing, and can find some one to teach them.

GaHillBilly

PS: For what it's worth, my son's current SM is an internist with an active practice, and I'm pretty sure everything I've said here reflects his opinions as well.

PPS: Some of my "trust but verify" attitude to medicine as it's practiced is a result of my experiences over the years. I've been removing stitches from myself and my family for years -- a practice which began when I had to remove, not once but twice, stitches each MD *assured* me was no longer there. One stitch, I picked out of the back of my own head, with the scissors of my Swiss Army knife. I've had to help an RN correct tubing connection errors on my wife's IV; I've had to call a doctor down for TOTALLY mis-prescribing medication to treat my son's episodes of EIA (exercise induced asthma), I've had to help a new Respiratory Therapist correct problems with his pulse oximeter, so he could correctly measure my son's blood oxygen saturation level, etc. I've worked out an effective treatment regimen for some recurrent ringworm episodes, after being told I'd have to just 'live with it', since the common OTC and prescription medications provided 'control', but not 'cure'. And so on.

The skills I have, other Scouters AND Scouts can, and often should, have. In many cases, the biggest obstacle is the fear that 'I can't learn that'!

So much basic medical tech is concealed behind a specialized vocabulary. "Pulse oximetry" *sounds* really complicated, but virtually any Scout knows you can shine a flashlight through a fingertip, and can understand how it might be possible to use that technique to see how 'red' the blood was. And, they should already know the difference between bright red arterial blood -- which is saturated in oxygen -- and darker venous blood. They probably don't know that the "redness" offers a proportional indication of HOW saturated the blood is . . . but it's a concept they can easily grasp. Remove the mystery, and many Scouts could have fixed the pulse oximeter just like I did, using some athletic tape to supplement a weak hinge spring in the finger clamp!

"As I have stated here before, my wife is an elementary school nurse (licensed RN). In this state, she cannot even give a child a TUMS without a written order from a physician."

Arg-g-gh!

My wife is an elementary school teacher, at a school with an RN school nurse who operates under the same restrictions you describe. A friend of my wife's is a school nurse at another school. Her friend is a very, very competent RN. The nurse at my wife's school probably is, though we have no evidence one way or another. I'm sure your wife is competent as well.

But it doesn't really matter. Anyone with a high school degree could learn EVERYTHING they needed to do the job in a single week training course. I mean, how hard is it to learn to distinguish clear snot from yellow bloody snot, or to take a temperature electronically. Most job applicants come already possessing the essential care skill (using a phone), since the primary care such nurses provide is to call the parent(s).

All the prescription & OTC drug restrictions, as well as all the other restrictions you didn't mention essentially turn the school nurse into a functionally useless school employee. Those restrictions have far, far more to do with the CYA principle, as it applies to the school board, the superintendent and the local principals, then it does to the well-being of the students. What the teachers REALLY use the nurse for, since they can't paddle whining students who've elected to fake illness, is to provide a place to park such students to keep them from disrupting the classroom. Since the nurse can't do anything for the students who are actually sick, there's no reason to send them out, unless they are barfing all over the classroom. The teachers just call the parents themselves, for the kids who are genuinely sick!

The no-care for Scouts approach may be necessary, at least until our country manages to export 90% of its lawyers to Siberia or some such. But, don't try to perfume the pig by suggesting that these restrictions benefit either the student OR the Scout!

I realize not every SM has the training to do more than scoutldr. But, with the prevalence of allergies, including severe food allergies, and allergically triggered asthma, such an approach essentially excludes a large number of boys from outdoor Scouting.

To list just a few of the conditions Scouters may need to deal with:

+ peanut allergies

+ other severe food allergies

+ bee and wasp sting allergies

+ fire ant sensitivity and allergies

+ exercise induced asthma

+ allergically triggered asthma

+ diabetic hypoglycemia and coma

There's no way an ADD asthmatic boy will, at age 12 or 13, remember to take all his meds appropriately on his own.

Fortunately, if we accept scoutldr's approach, there's a simple solution: just require a parent to come along on all trips, and require the Scout to tent and hang out with the parent! That way, there's no risk to the SM or troop or sponsoring organization, and no requirement of additional training.

Of course, such an approach might have the downside of giving the boys the idea the all the Scout first aid training doesn't apply to real world situations, since the SM's example is to hand over all such care, whenever it's actually needed, to more legally acceptable persons, such as parents, EMT's, paramedics, and physicians. Gee, if they follow that example, the boys might get the idea the the only thing they really need in their first aid kit is a cell phone, and a list of numbers!

GaHillBilly

PS: for those who think a different approach might be better, there are some good eMedicine articles here:

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=60041

Since they are authored by legally recognized physicians, these articles might even meet scoutldr's and Bob White's approval so long as it was understood that this information was purely theoretical, and not to be actually employed by any non-certified person, or even a certified person unless the parent was present, and busily signing all papers handed to him / her.

Well, GAHillBilly, you've just offended me. Care to explain that remark in a bit more detail?

It was a poor analogy, and "SUBMIT"ing got ahead of my thinking. I should have realized that if I needed to say, "I hope this won't offend", I should have just left it out!

But I'm not anti-RC at all, even though I am Protestant. I've been enormously helped in my own faith by several RC writers, including Dorothy Sayers and her translation of Dante's Divine Comedy, Tolkien and particular his account of Purgatory (Leaf by Niggle), and Chesterton. And, I find myself constantly referring to the online Catholic Encyclopedia for help, as I consider various theological and ethical issues.

Again, it was a very poor comparison and unlikely to have explanatory value to anyone with a different background than my own (which pretty much means everyone else).

I'm not sure more explanation will help.

But I'll be glad to try if you wish. However it would be so off-topic here, and so likely to lead this thread astray, that I would ask you to let us discuss it in the Issues & Politics section rather than here.

GaHillBilly

Just a caution . . . I checked the pants at our local council shop, and the shorts are seriously LONG! If you, or your son, is a rapper wanna-be, then they are probably just the right length.

But I'm not going to be recommending them to the hiking MB group I've just begun working with. Having pants that drag on my knees or thighs when I'm hiking in hot sweaty weather is one of my pet peeves.

GaHillBilly

" da whole thing really needs a re-write and a good editor, eh? "Shall" language in guidelines, "may" language in 'policy', some policy stuff that really doesn't belong, some outdated material."

Hm-m-mh. Makes sense. I knew it was a compilation; I just hadn't thought through the likely implications of that fact, and haven't been around long enough to see its evolution.

I won't hold my breath, waiting for the re-write. But, I'm very happy to have the bold/plain tool in my box. I'll re-read the G2SS with that in mind, and hopefully, the next time some provision in the G2SS starts to cause problems, I'll be able to point to the G2SS preface, and then say, "Oh, you don't have to worry about that . . . it's only in PLAIN text!" ;-)

I'm envisioning a marked-up 'Get out of jail free' copy of the G2SS coming to meetings with me in the near future!

GaHillBilly

PS: In some ways -- and I hope I don't offend by saying this -- BSA is beginning to remind me of the Roman Catholic church: some official, somewhere, has officially taken almost every position that could be taken.

My bad; I got the bold and un-bold mixed up.

But the question remains . . . there's a LOT of stuff that's been treated as required, that's apparently not.

Bob, I wasn't saying it was new, only that I and a whole bunch of other people had overlooked it, and that SM's and troops and whole councils are treating non-bold text as if it were bold. I know around here I could definitely stir up some hornets (or at least a few yellow jackets) by a few statements to the affect that this or that 'requirement' is non-bold, and thus only a BSA recommendation.

It would be interesting to grab the online version, and split it into two halves: the requirements and the recommendations. Doing so would open a lot of people's eyes.

GaHillBilly(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

In our recent exchange, Bob White correctly pointed out that in the G2SS **ONLY** the type in bold face represents BSA official policy. To quote from http://www.scouting.org/healthandsafety/gss.aspx, "Bold type throughout the Guide to Safe Scouting denotes BSA rules and policies". The clear implication is, of course, that anything NOT in bold type is NOT a BSA "rule" or "policy", but only informational or suggestive.

Though this did not impact the point I'd made to Bob, it was nevertheless a fact I'd overlooked, and one that is potentially very, very significant for anyone trying to determine BSA requirements.

For example, the requirement to keep liquid fuel in a special box is well known, and I've seen it reproduced here, as well has having encountered it locally. But, if you examine the actual 'requirement', at http://www.scouting.org/healthandsafety/gss/gss07.aspx#b, of the 13 points, only #3 is bold faced:

"3. Both gasoline and kerosene shall be kept in well-marked, approved containers (never in a glass container) and stored in a ventilated, locked box at a safe distance (a minimum of 20 feet) from buildings and tents. Keep all chemical fuel containers away from hot stoves and campfires, and store below 100 degrees (F)."

The container 'requirement' is #6, and is NOT in bold:

"6. Both gasoline and kerosene shall be kept in well-marked, approved containers (never in a glass container) and stored in a ventilated, locked box at a safe distance (a minimum of 20 feet) from buildings and tents. Keep all chemical fuel containers away from hot stoves and campfires, and store below 100 degrees (F)."

Thus, by the G2SS own interpretive preface, #6 is ONLY a guideline or suggestion, and NOT a requirement. This is puzzling, both because so many Scouters (myself included) seem to have overlooked the distinction, but also because the "SHALL" language -- normally, a regulatory key word -- is so often used in the 'guidelines'.

I could go on, but I've already ID'd a half-dozen local requirements ("the G2SS requires this, so we do too") that derive from plain face sections. Actually, I'm kind of pumped, in that this bold/plain distinction sets us free from a bunch of somewhat burdensome requirements.

But, I'm afraid it's too good to be true. Any comments or insight?

GaHillBilly

Gee, Bob, if you don't know how to respond to the question another poster poses you, you just make up your own question, and respond to that!

I described the G2SS water treatment method as a "process", not a rule! I could have gone further, and called it "declarative advice". Here's the lead-in from the manual itself:

"To treat water, follow these steps: . . ."

That's pretty definite advice, whether it's "policy" or a "rule" or not.

And blowing off GoldWinger's Nazi reference just because you find it "repugnant" is irrational and non-responsive. The same exact reference occurred to me, and probably dozens of other forum users as soon as they read your simplistic and naive definition of "good citzenship"

You don't have to go as far as Germany, to find examples of citzenship that was NOT good, precisely because it followed "the laws of the community". I'm in Georgia, where it was the law 150 years ago that you had to return an escaped slave to the owner. Citzens -- presumably including some of my ancestors -- who followed this law were certainly NOT being "good" when they did so. Likewise, the land upon which my house rests at this very moment was stolen somewhat illegally from its Cherokee owners 180 - 190 years ago. But, the "community" law as all for the theft, as was our then President Andrew Jackson, who was otherwise known for his strict ethics.

You don't even have to go back 100 years ago.

Several years ago, I had occasion to do some consulting and design work for the president of a mutual life insurance based nearby. It was an interesting experience. For whatever reason, he felt comfortable bragging to me how he'd arranged to have the law changed in Georgia to allow him to extract more personal benefit and income from his company, which as a mutual company was nominally owned by the policyholders.

Since then, I occasionally pose the only slightly facetious question, "What's the difference between a car thief and many company presidents?" Answer: "A company president pays lobbyists to get the law changed to make your property his, BEFORE he steals it!" No doubt, you'll cheer the felonious president all the way to his bank, since he's following the law he changed!

Goldwinger's reference was perfectly reasonable and appropriate; my guess is you find it repugnant primarily because you have no good answer for it!

GaHillBilly