mk9750

Gosh darn fingers! That's "fire", not "faire". Mark

For the sake of all of thes Scouts in your Troop, please, PLEASE pursue this and get it corrected. I know it's tough to faire a volunteer, but... Mark

I like the idea of a ASM (or 2, if possible) assigned to each patrol, even the regulr patrols. It gives each patrol a set adult(s) who will camp and do other outings with the Patrol. This is important to us as we move from doing so many Troop events to very few, and the dropped ones being replaced by Patrol events. the SM can't possibly be at all the Patrol campouts. We use Patrol ASMs to cover for the SM for most Patrol events. We also naturally gravitated toward each ASM being a mentor, of sort, for Scout Skills and activities in which they have an interest or skill. One of our ASMs knows more about orienteering than all the rest of our Troop put together, so when a Scout (or couple of Scouts, usually) is preparing to demo compass skills and arranging Patrol competitions, it is this ASM who he goes to for guidance. Same for aquatics stuff, cooking, hiking, lashing, etc. I like your philosophy about making the boys responsible for as much as you do. I've got our Scribe now handling all the advancement paperwork and placing orders for awards. Next winter, our QM will become responsible for purchasing replacement equipment and justifying the need for additional equipment to the committee. It will be a big jump when we try to get a boy to handle tour permits, as our Council is pretty tough on the ones the adults fill out, but that is the plan over the next few months, too. One difficulty we have sometimes as it relates to ASMs is that we get so many of them, that we don't have enough dedicated committee members to do Boards of Review sometimes. As much as I think they would both make great ASMs, I've coerced two great guys into staying on the committee just so I have adults I can count on to help with BORs. And one other slight contrast between your ideas and ours. Although all SMs and ASMs are asked to attend Committee Meetings, they are technically not "on the committee" in our Troop. I seem to remember in my training that this is the way Troop adults are organized, and that is the way we've done it since before I got to my position. Good luck! Mark

Yeah, what Bob said! I figure I'm one of the old timers, but that doesn't square, as there are plenty of the rest of you that answer questions WAY better than I do! Mark

Dave, I play golf with a guy who shakes similiar to what you describe. He's never explained why, and as far as I know, know one has ever asked. At 38, he has already survived Luekemia, and I think we all just assumed that this was a left over result of that battle. Now it's maybe, maybe not. I think I've come to know you fairly well through these discusions, and have always felt that you are an exceptional person. I know that you didn't intend this, but I now know that even more. I have no information to share, so I am of no value in the thread. But I truly thank you for starting it. Mark

Ron, Taking your description of the situation at face value, and assuming he didn't satisfy the leadership requirement earlier in his career as a Life Scout, I would do everything in my power to protest this boy making Eagle Scout. Now, if there are valid points to his side of the aurgument... Mark

Pack, Sorry, but I don't think I can help much. In the material I reviewed, I did not see any reference to BSA revoking the ability of UUA to charter units. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, I just didn't see it in the material I reviewed. As to what UUA agreed, it appeared to me that their intention originally, and what they told BSA, was that no mention of homosexuality would be made in the Religious Emblem packet of materials. They would provide guidance to youth about the topic through other channels. I reviewed the material in chronological order, so I did not have the knowledge of what was to come later as I looked at it, but I interpreted this (and I think the BSA must have too) that UUA would not use any part of literature connected with BSA to promulgate homosexuality. After the two organizations agreed to proceed under this understanding, the UUA inserted a loose leaf sheet into the packet with such guidance in it. I no longer have the material to reference, as it was given to our SM. So I am working from memory, but I believe the last correspondence from which the two organizations were able to agree stated that no mention of the topic would be made in the direct materials. I am sure the UUA believes they lived up to this commitment by inserting the loose leaf letter: Obviously, the BSA does not. Almost all of my review was based on copies of letters between the two organizations, and editorials by UUA officials. To my knowledge, there was no "contract" exchanged. The agreement was reached in correspondence back and forth. Those letters are available for review in the UUA website. You may have to dig a little when you get there. Bob, I hate doing this, because I generally (no, I specifically) support your position on this issue. Actually, I probably support it more for the same reasons Rooster does, but that's neither here nor there. You talked about how local organizations like teams that belong to the NFL must adhere to national policy. Of course, you are right about some things (number of games in the schedule, size of the roster, etc.). but there are also plenty of things about which each team can decide (start date of practices, how long practices are, how many tight ends vs running backs they carry, etc.). In each of the other analogies you made, much of the rules are governed globally, but individual units control some aspects of their operation. Again, I believe that the BSA's position in this matter is right. But the analogies you used are flawed, in my opinion. Mark

Troopmom, Now that you've clarified the situation, it is very easy for me to agree with you. The boys SHOULD be responsible for planning. Part of their planning includes advising the appropriate adult what resources they need to make a trip happen. Drivers are resources. Therefore, as long as the youth have advised the proper adult (in our Troop it is the CC), in a timely manner, they have completed that part of the job. For adults to force a trip to be cancelled because they didn't fulfill their responsiblity is assinine. Just a clarification, because you used climbing gear in your example. I am pretty certain that one of the requirments for Climb On Safely is that the BSA Certified Climbing Instructor must maintain control of all climbing gear, and log and monitor its use. This is an example (few as they are) of things that legally adults must do, even though boys might be able to be responsible themselves. And one last point (and I learned this here!). If the outing that was planned was a Patrol event, and the SM approved it, the boys need have NO adults with them. The SM certainly should be sure that all of the boys on the event can handle the situation, and he should be VERY comfortable with the planning, but some outings could be done without adults. The reason I mentioned this was twofold. First, it is a viable alternative. But another idea might be to tell the adults who won't go that the boys could do this trip on their own. You might have a couple of adults decide they ought to make some time. Good luck to you. Mark

River, Welcome! It's amazing to me, but you received about 15 responses, and every single one of them, even though they were generally different, were perfect! Had I asked the same question you did, I'd feel very comfortable with any decision I made after contemplating the advice you got here. My thoughts mirrors Dan's. I have often based my decision to volunteer for anything on the philosophy "If not me, than who?". Sometimes it means I jump in almost recklessly. But I've never been unhappy with the choice. When I see that there is somewhere better than me to handle the job, I work my rear off to recruit that person, and then support him (or her). I also agree with the sentiment that you should have the firm backing of your family. The biggest complaint my wife has about Scouting is how it dominates our lives, particularly the diner conversation. My wife even tried to make the point we had taken it too far one time by setting my two sons and I up to cook diner over a fire in the back yard once! It's not always easy on the spouse. And as was mentioned, being the son of the SM has its good and bad points. You'll need to work hard to be fair with your son. And I mean be fair both ways. It's very easy for a SM to worry about treating his son too favorably that he goes the other way and makes it tougher on him. I know as Advancement Chair, I have done this. My youngest son didn't make Star when he may have been ready because I was so concerned that he had been treated favorably because he was my son that I convinced him to work harder in his leadership position before he requested a Board of Review. In hindsight, this was not fair to him, and I recognize I can't do it to him again. My point is, yhou have to be careful about issues like this. I am sure that whatever you decide, your Troop will benefit from the decision. If you take it (and my inclination from what your wrtten is that you would do well), I am sure the Troop will prosper. If you decide to decline, I'm betting that it will be because someone else can do the job better. Either way, your decision will be an honorable one. Best of luck to you and your Troop! Mark

Pack, I respectfully disagree with your position here. I investigated the issue of UUA as unemotionally as I possibly could. I determined that BOTH organizations refused to assimilate a core value of the other into important aspects of their own program (BSA refused to allow UUA to discuss homosexuality in literature that pertained to a religious emblem they recognize, the UUA refused to accept the BSA's position on homosexuality). BOTH organizations MUST claim responsiblity for this situation, as well as BOTH feeling good that they stuck to their principles. You say that the BSA made a decision that negetively affected innocent children. OK, for the sake of the discussion I'll accept that. But if I do, I MUST point out that UUA made a decision that EQUALLY negetively affected these same children. And in no way can I see the effect that these decisions had on UUA children anywhere close to the effect of the real discrimination that happened in the cases to which you allude. And it isn't a matter of quantity of people involved. Mark

Hops, To steal a line from Eamonn, don't let He Who Should Be Ignored get you down. Your posts are insightful and I look forward to seeing them. You suffer ffrom a malaise that many of your peers who grew up in the IM generation have: You type quickly, more like a conversation than a work of prose. I've come to accept (reluctantly, for sure!) that that is the way computer conversations now happen. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Despite what was said here, communication is a two way street. The sender does have a responsiblity to make the message understandable. The receiver has an equal responsiblity to understand the message. Keep posting. Those who want to get your message will. the rest may just go away. Mark

Way too many to list. I'll tell two. The saddest happy day of my life was watching 9 Webelos with whom I spent four years as a freind and mentor finishing their Cub Scout career and crossing to Boy Scouts. And then, between 6 and 7 years later, watching three of them earn Eagle Scout (including my son). On the first campout I went with the Troop, we were in the Allegheny National Forest in late October. The leaves were at peak. There was a rock outcrop that we used to rapel from which it seemed like one could see forever. Very cool morming, very hot coffee, all alone at 7:15 in the morning, cemented my belief that God has to exist. Within a half hour, I had about a dozen young men with me, and a spontaneous religious service broke out. I don't believe I am fanatic about my belief in God, but this was one of the defining moments in my life. Mark

Dave, Man, I fretted for 20 minutes trying to get the spelling right (which I think I STILL goofed up!), that I paid no attention to whether I had the right Church! Sorry! Your words are kind. thank you! Mark

My oldest son's Webelos Den decided to do a family canoe outing as one of the last activities before crossing. We went to a local livery to rent the canoes. One would think that they would want to increase their income by renting as many canoes as possible, but not in this case. One would also think that if they saw a family of four coming, with dad @ 260, mom not a runway model, and two moderately hefty young boys, they would again want to issue multiple canoes. No to both thoughts. Four people, none small for their age, floating down our local river. All was well for the first 2/3s of the trip. Mom relaxing, dad and oldest paddling, the little guy pointing out all of the interesting things along the river. Then, time for a little shallow water. All of the other families got through with no problem. They probably had 500 pounds or less in each canoe. We had probably 700. You might guess that dad was out of the canoe (both lightening the load and pushing through / over the shaollow bottom). I spent @ a mile like this. Then, it was obvious that things were deep enough again, I could get into the canoe. Being VERY inexperienced at canoeing, I tried to get in by standing on the last rock before it got deep, and lifting my water soaked, denim covered hamhock over the side of the canoe. Mom comes up from under the surface of the river, looking like a drowned rat, only to find our lunches floting down river, apparently racing the new canteen that my oldest son got from grandma and grandpa for his impending adventures in boys Scouts. Oldest son trying to hold back the youngest son from chasing lunch down the river, youngest son wailing like a coyote, and dad not to be seen. Finally, I came up, holding my right hand in the air, saying "hey, look at this!" My pinkie finger was bent at a 90 degree angle to the rest of my hand at the knuckle. Well, despite my wife being an X-Ray tech, and having seen some greusome things before, she lost the lunch that she hadn't yet eaten. Poor oldest son, all over him! Good thing he was standing in a bathtub! Mom straightened dad's finger, although she couldn't watch herself do it. We all get over to the bank, climb in the canoe PROPERLY, and set sail once again. We caught up with the lunch, but found it highly inedible. Never did see the canteen again. Once we got to the car, not very dry, we decided not to stick around for the picnic that was planned. We got in the car, and I tried to hurry to get home. Put the car in reverse with youngest still outside the car. The open car door practically knocked him down. How we got home without a major injury is amazing. But somehow, even doing oh, I don't know, THIRTY EIGHT stupid things, no one got seriously hurt. But I rarely get through any gathering that includes any of the old Webelos Den or their parents without having to relive the moment. Seems it's pretty funny to everyone else. To me, all I see is a pinkie finger that's still bent funny. Someone should make a movie of that. It might get on the list in other current thread. Mark

Our Troop has an active Kayaking program. We have two American Red Cross trained instructors among our adults, and we have 7 boys who have and unofficial Junior instructors from the ARC. We own 14 kayaks (actually, 3 of the 14 are owned personally, rather than by the Troop). We kayak in northeastern Ohio and Pennsylvania, and my son is planning a trip for the venture Patrol to the New River for next spring. I think it's an attitude we've picked up from ARC, but we view rafting is moderately unsafe. I probably shouldn't even bring it up here, because I don't know the reasoning behind that, so I can't defend the statement. I'll ask my son tonight and post the reason tommorow. Mark Mark

A couple of points: 1) I have started to view myself and the other adults in the Troop as "volunteers" instead of "leaders". I have done this in order to try to reinforce my position that ours is a responsiblity of service, not "leadership", at least not the way Rudd seems to be defining it. 2) It is certainly easier, and less time consuming, to usurp the SPL's responsiblity and create order from chaos. But in what way does that support any of the AIMS, or use any of the METHODS, of Scouting? In most of your examples (take the Council President as one), the lesson the boys can and should learn about boy leadership, acting maturely, and respect is more important the the talk the President intended to give. All of these points can be made if the SPL is asked to do his job, even if he does it poorly. Only one or two points are made if we take over for him, and even the little a Scout would learn (his place in society is how I think Rudd phrased it), he's likely to pay little attention to it, because that's the way parents, teachers, coaches, etc. already treat him. However, if we utilize the Methods we are asked to use, and coach the SPL how to take care of the situation, the likelihood that the lesson will stick with ALL increases. 3) In the case of the Council President, I would hope he understands the Aims and Methods of Scouting, and would allow them to be put to use. If I were the President, I might decide my time was more valuable than to stand and wait till the SPL got things under control. But I would ask to reschedule, not step into the SPL's shoes. And if the President didn't understand the Aims and Methods, I'd have a tough time figuring out what he might have to say that had value to a group of Scouts. 4)I had an experience last night at PLc that has convinced me that supporting the SPL is a far greater method than inserting myself in his job. It's a long story, and you all know how I abhor long stories (lol!). But I am more convinced than ever that these guys can handle their job if we get out of the way. 5) Have no fear, Rudd. there is a place for the style you describe. In matters of safety, I'm all for adults stepping in, as it is too possible that a boy may not respond instictively enough, quickly enough, to protect the safety of themself or others. I still contend that the better way to handle even this is to train people before they encounter a dangerous situation (see my post in another thread). But unless safety is at stake, more can be gained by a failure done using the proper Methods than a sucess that the adults directed. Mark

I'd like to hear the opinion of the Scouts on this forum about this. How do you guys look at young Eagle Scouts? Do you think 13 is a resonable age? I know Hops Scout will have some insight, and maybe so will Ryon and our new freind SPLCOBRA. hopefully there are others. Did you have a chance to be Eagle that quickly if you had wanted to? Did anyone in your Troop try? What were the results? did these guys get value from Scouting? Are they still in Scouts? Do they add to your Troop's program, not mean much one way or the other, or do they hurt it? If you were the wizard who could set the rules, what age would be the perfect age to make Eagle? Eagledad, What would it take for you to come to our Troop to teach your phlosophy? Again, you have blown me away with your wisdom. I know I sound ridiculous, but I truly believe that your attitude is the most likely way to positively influence Scouts. I missed when you had cut back your contributions. I'm glad your back. Mark

The opinion I formulated after investigating this quite deeply is this: The UUA had material in their Religious Emblem Award Literature that was inconsistent with the Philosphies of the BSA. The BSA objected, and when the UUA made an unacceptable attempt (to the BSA) to ammend their material, the BSA advised the UUA that they would no longer recongnize their Religious Emblem. This apparently caused the UUA to work harder toward satisfying the BSA, as, after many letters between the two organizations, and many reviews, the UUA was able to satisfy the BSA by pulling all reference to homosexuality out of the material. They said they would attempt to stay true to their beliefs by advising all UUA youth where they could obtain guidance on the topic if they were looking via other channels (by the way, this is a very reasonable position to take, IMHO). The BSA then agreed to recognize the Award. When the Emblem materials began to be distributed to youth who wanted to work on the Award, there was a seperate sheet included detailing the UUA's position on the issue and advising youth where to go for guidance. I don't suggest that this is a bad thing, but it was clear to me that the BSA's intent was to avoid ANY reference to homosexuality in the materials for an Award that they would recognize: The UUA used the disemination of the materials for the Award to provide information about the subject. A few more letters went back and forth, and both insitutions apparently agreed that they would not be able to align their goals with respect to the Award. I think it is unfair of anyone to label one side or the other right or wrong. Both organizations protected core beliefs. These beliefs just don't align. Some might say that this is the same as the core beliefs of the BSA and the KKK not aligning. That would be unfortunate to characterize this like that. A more realistic analogy might be the core beliefs of the BSA and Girl Scouts not aligning (which they don't on a number of issues). It doesn't make either wrong, just different. I started the investigation with as much of an open mind as I can have while being "on BSA's side" (if you can understand what I mean). The material that I saw was easy to categorize as being pro UUA, pro BSA, and some which truly was impartial. Upon reviewing all of the evidence I found, both parties are right, IMHO. I still disagree with the UUA's position, but I'd like to think that we all have the right to believe what we want. I commend the BSA for standing their ground. I commend the UUA for standing theirs. I hope that UUA youth both in and out of Scouting pursue their Religious Emblem. Even if it can't be worn on a Scouting Uniform. By the way, I see a world of diference between this and the Presbetarian issue. The UUA is attempting to use material that the BSA has an interest in reviewing to promote a policy that is diametrically opposed to the BSA's. the Presbetarian Church is dealing with an internal issue. At some point, those who agree to allow a homosexual Bishop my decide to promote homosexuality in a way the affects the BSA. If and when they do, I'm sure the BSA will respond. But the election of a Bishop (which, although is more complicated than just this, is an internal political issue) does not affect Scouting. I am done. Mark

Does anyone have an opinion as to assertation made in the quote of the author concerning the differences between BP's, Beard's and Seton's view of Scouting and Irving's? Mark

And if you add me to Ed, and we alternated, you'd have the start of The Wave. Please understand it is difficult to clap while typing. How I have hoped for someone who could make this arguement using reality, real examples, quotes and history. I have known this to be true for ever, but have never put the effort into gathering everything together into one cohesive post. One point that I'd like to add, to make the connection: The "protection against discrimination" of which Merlyn speaks only exists because courts have legislated from the bench. I don't believe elected officials have ever succesfully attempted to create the "protection" Merlyn and others claim they have. THANK YOU!!! Mark

Dave Poxes ain't my bag, baby!" Won't say a word. Mark

Oh man, that's gotta be killing him! Dave, I spoke with our Scout Executive (G.E.) last night at kickoff. He is doing well. Had a lot of very nice things to say about you. It seemed to me he felt priveledged to have worked with you. Mark

OH. Now it's crystal clear. Mark

Ed, I'm with you 100% about the PC stuff. Punishment is a consequence for a negetive action that is intended to teach the offender not to act the same way again. Sometimes it teaches others not to act the same way. This will teach the the entire group this leasson. Although it certainly is a learning oppurtunity, the learning oppurtunity is being used as punishment. I see nothing wrong with calling it punishment. I may be the one wet blanket here concerning the tactic. I've thought about it for a day, and wonder whether we are supposed to use the advancement program as a weapon. As has been talked about several times in other threads, the choice of what MBs a boy attempts to earn his his alone. We can't even make him earn the "required" ones. He has to choose to. I love the idea of presenting fire safety. It will do this boy a world of good, and probably help others in the Troop as well. In our Troop, this boy would be required to TEACH the class, as we subscribe to the theory that you learn nothing as well as when you teach it to others. But the choice to attempt to earn the MB should be his, and could be the positive reinforcement at the end of the punishment. I don't know if everyone will see what I mean by this, but I don't think what you want to do is wrong, but I'm not so sure it's right. Either way, good luck working this through. Mark

SagerScout, Your point about schools training us to accept working long hours is valid, of course. The difficulty I have is two fold: 1st, the premise that new techiques are an improvement over old techniques. Much of these new techniques I think are like liberal's ideas about our country: They sure sound good, but they haven't proven to work, for the most part. I mean, seriously, who can argue against setting up school so that grades (if they exist at all) are based on how hard Jack and Jill try, not on whether they answered all the questions correctly? Compassionate people just have to accept this, right? Well, unfortunately, I believe that outcome-based education has shown that these students don't compete as well for slots in college, nor for jobs. But certainly, until our society is as touchy - feely as our schools are becoming, victims of outcome based education will be disadvantaged. 2nd, the assumption that we are entitled to any education at all. I believe we are not, and that therefore renders any of the first issue moot. As you mentioned, the framers of the Constitution were primarily self educated. And to pull public education out from underneath our population leaves education for only the well to do (at least initially). But our education is our own responsiblity. If groups of people find it convenient, or more valuable, to band together to educate communally, that is there decision. But for us to clammor that we have a right to education, or a certain level of education, or education formatted a certain way, is contrary to the individualistic ideals those framers envisioned. Eamonn, sorry that I have participated in the hijacking of your thread (I may have even been the culprit!). If I have further posts on your topic, I will add them here. If other posts concern the educational system politics, I will move the discussion to the issues and politics section. Mark