Beavah

First off, Beavah, I had to read your post three times before I understood what you were trying to get across.

Yah gotta go watch "Fargo", eh? Us folks from da northern Midwest really talk like dat!

However, when a person seeking truth stops at the first thing that works for the moment and declares "This is truth", that person is more likely to have found a belief or opinion

Yah, sure. But don't you think it's a pretty prejudiced view to ascribe to someone else that they "stopped at the first thing that worked for the moment" then shut off their brain? I haven't really met anyone like that.

It is my experience that conservatives are more likely to take their personal belief and opinions and declare that they are "universal truths".

I agree with that, too, which was my point. Conservatives are more comfortable with the language of universal truth and common, shared belief. They are more comfortable seeking it, they are more comfortable declaring it, talking about it openly, evangelizing. They are more comfortable viewing themselves not as strictly independent personal opinions, but as an integral part of a bigger society/group/church nation... and they are willing to sacrifice some of themselves for those bigger concepts.

But to many conservatives (and especially those of the religious-right), other points of view, other beliefs, are not valid, and therefore not worthy of consideration. THEIR truth should be truth for everyone, and they are willing to ram it down the throats of everyone else.

I think again that this is an unkind characterization. If you really care about understanding another's viewpoint, then you would recognize that what you speak of as "ramming down the throats of everyone else" is an act of charity. It is the necessary consequence of universal truth. If you are certain that using illegal drugs is harmful to a child ("universal truth"), then you stop the child from using them. If you are certain that shooting students in Tiannamen Square is wrong, then you stand in front of the tank or cut off economic support. You are both willing to intevene with others (a sacrifice of your time and resources), and willing to sacrifice yourself.

Conservatives are more comfortable with that language and those consequences... of pledging their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to the "universal" cause. Is it just "their belief?" Maybe. But it's very effective at building communities, resisting millenia of oppression, and freeing slaves. Can it be corrupted? Yep, just like everything. Patriotism can become nationalism can become National Socialism.

You spoke of patriotism as one of the "objective truths" that conservatives speak about... How can these things be "objective truths" if they differ from person to person?

Easy. Some people can be wrong.

But my point was different. My point was just that the conservatives were more comfortable with the language of patriotism and self-sacrifice; more willing to speak in public in terms of universal truth. I made no claims about them being "right," just "effective." In rejecting the notion of groups and the language of shared values, liberals/democrats/people who talk like JD lose the ability to persuade people to give up something so as to join/build a community.

When you try to stuff all those ideas into a label, you lose their individuality.

Exactly. You go from being a Babel of individuals into being a community... just like when you stuff a bunch of boys into uniforms and teach them to live by common values of duty to God, and nation, and neighbor, and self.

Beavah, you start a thread where you address Lisabob's various ideas but you don't have the patience to read through other posters' responses?? Hmmmmm. . . so much for a dialogue of ideas. Give my comments about "skimming" another look.

Yah, JD, der you go again.

Reading the posts of other scouting volunteers in the most negative light possible, and responding with a criticism of the person instead of the idea.

What I meant was what I said. Why don't you split up your long post into separate threads, which would enable more people to respond to individual issues that they were interested in, and in greater detail?

Beavah

you can create special positions (although they are NOT valid for Eagle).

Sure they are. They are Scoutmaster-approved leadership projects. Or if some Chief of Officiousness asks, da communications guy is "Scribe #2" and da Recruitment guy is "Junior Assistant Scoutmaster for Recruitment".

The only thing to be cautious of is to make sure that any new positions you create are "real." They should demand the same level of responsibility and lead to the same amount of personal growth as being QM, PL or ASPL. (Which is why people like CNY have trouble with positions like "Bugler", but that's another sorry tale for another time).

Yah, sure DanKroh.

The quest for findin' somethin' dat works, or for somethin' closer to "objective truth" is sure as shootin' going to lead to plenty of doozies of mistakes, and some over-reachin'.

That doesn't mean that the quest ain't worth pursuing.

Yah, JD, dat's a bit much, eh? Perhaps a separate thread for each topic?

One thing I think that's apparent in your postings that I didn't catch before is the insistence on presenting/categorizing things as personal opinion/belief, absent any group label. Of course whatever any of us writes or says is our own personal understanding. That's so obvious it doesn't merit comment.

But I think one big difference between the Blue-L's and the Red-C's is that the Red-C's are more comfortable with the quest for objective, impersonal truth, that goes beyond what "I believe" to "What really works" or "what makes us us." In that way, they are more apt to use the language of objectivity or "common belief" like patriotism, even overbroadly. This drives many deconstructionist Blue-L's batty, as you illustrate.

Deconstructing any argument to a matter of personal belief makes an argument much easier to dismiss - you believe that, I believe this. There is then no need to work together to find an objective truth. Everything is "belief sharing" or, in the media "belief shouting." At the same time, such deconstruction prevents runaway "common beliefs" like Islamists or Maoists which can be very destructive.

But deconstruction and individual centeredness doesn't build community. People keep votin' for even weak "Red-C's" because they are using the language of objectivity, common belief and purpose which you seem to dismiss. It isn't a bad thing to define oneself in part as being a member of a group - an American, a Jew, a conservative, a Boy Scout, a Steeler's fan. That's genuine, it recognizes commonalities beyond individual differences, and it builds communities.

I failed to get that point across because for some reason dat's become a Red-C notion.

By not following this particular rule, the Scoutmaster puts a boy's Eagle Rank at risk.

Yeh do understand that the only thing that goes to National is the Eagle Rank Application form, right? Once three members of the committee certify the advancement, it's a done deal. So this no more puts a boy's Eagle at risk than the many units and camps out there that "subtract from the requirements." And unlike those, having da UC on a BOR really doesn't compromise the aims.

Call me a purist if you will, but I believe we have an obligation to our youth to follow National BSA policy whenever we can. I follow the rules. A Scout is honest & trustworthy. So if I know a rule exists and I don't follow it, what standard am I setting?

Hi purist! You can call me an anarchist if you like, though our forum anarchist might be upset that I'm poaching on his turf!

I think anybody who has ever written a rule knows dat he is relying on the intelligence and compassion of others to know how and when to apply the rule. Didn't we all cringe when the scout last summer followed the "stranger danger" rule almost to his own demise? Don't we all get more than a bit peeved when someone quotes policy as an excuse for not using common sense? Aren't we all a little upset when "zero tolerance" expels the boy scout who leaves his camping gear in his car, including his pocket knife? I think in those cases, even the writers of the rules get upset, because their rules are being applied in hurtful and unintended ways.

Rules are a place to start when making a decision, sure... but then context, principles, goals, compassion, experience, and other factors must be considered. A Scout is helpful, friendly, kind, brave, reverent, mentally awake, and morally straight. We don't want kids to just follow rules; we want them to exercise judgment. We don't want units to just be "standard," we want them to serve unique kids and communities.

Like you, I believe the real rule is to do what's right for the kids. That often means supportin' the local volunteers who are doing good work and not sweatin' the small stuff.

Thanks, vmpost, for agreeing with the rest of my statement!

As for the other, it seems to me that a council not honoring a boys BOR would be an odd thing to do to a boy.

There are large troops out there with small committees in some chartered organizations. Ive known a couple where the committee was the youth subcommittee of the church, only 3-4 members. If they were really forced to live by this rule they would never be able to serve the kids well.

And Im not ready to say that a BOR that includes the unit commissioner has somehow so undermined our aims of character, fitness, and citizenship, are you? Or the BOR where the ASM filled in when one of MCs hit a deer on the way to the meeting? Or the BOR at summer camp where a district advancement committee member joined in?

Standardization, like no tolerance policies always looks like a good idea, until you actually realize what it does to people in some cases.

The biggest thing you can do is talk to the parents several months before. Tell them:

1) Talk up all the fun he'll have at summer camp, and how cool it's going to be. Have dad share his fun summer camp stories.

2) Help them plan things out & pack (DON'T plan and pack for them). Include a small special item or game that they can share... as simple as a deck of cards... something to fall back on for hookin' up with other kids.

3) Practice a few "life skills" like hanging up a towel to dry or bagging clothes that have become "ripe."

4) NEVER say "We're going to miss you so much" or anything of the sort.

5) NEVER talk about how the rest of the family is going to go on some (other, fun) vacation without him while he's gone.

Confidence and pride in the parents will almost always be reflected as confidence and grit in the boy. Worry, concern, fretting by the parents will often result in worry by the boy.

And for goodness sake, get them out on a few weekend trips with the troop that are fun and successful before they head off to camp!

Wow. Yeh ask for input, then you roast da poor fellow for givin' you input. Seems like some folks need some better trainin'.

Let's say I'm a unit scouter. My CO shows me the charter agreement that says "The Council agrees to provide year-round training, service, and program resources." When the council doesn't provide me with useful training, it somehow becomes my job to spend my volunteer time fixin' it, instead of spending that volunteer time with da kids in my CO's unit? Dat's some "trustworthy" charter agreement, there.

What a riot. Like telling the customer if he doesn't like the coffee, he needs to train the waiters. And folks wonder why people don't have time for training! As a district scouter, I know my job is to serve the units, not ask them to serve me. The units are where the kids are. They have enough to do.

I've never heard of a unit like Bourne's, and I wonder if he's exaggeratin' just a bit. Of course, most of us do outsource for a little bit of training like CPR or Leave No Trace. That recognizes that there are organizations out there that know a lot more about this stuff than the BSA, and they're worth learning from, spending time on, and paying for. If we're honest, we have to admit there are other professionals out there who do youth development, and outdoor leadership, and mentoring, and helping youth with disabilities or youth at risk, and fitness, and character development, and safety/risk management... a lot better than what's in da BSA program.

If we're honest with ourselves, we also recognize that too many of the BSA's folks are "one-weekend know-it-alls." That's partly from being so parochial - we see our (really minimal, cursory) training as the end-all. If Bourne's troop has people who are willing to seek out such real professional training so as to better serve their kids, the appropriate response isn't to villify them, it is to applaud them for their exceptional commitment.

And it certainly makes the point that people are willing to spend their time on quality.

BSA standards and guidance are based on the collective experiences of all those who have gone before us. We should think long and hard before we choose to deviate from them.

Nah, as anyone who does this work can tell you, da BSA standards are based primarily on the opinions and experiences selected by the people who were on that particular revision and writing committee.

And ya gotta remember, there's little value in "average" anything. To average "the collective experiences" of all the many people in scouting is much like averaging the shoe size of every human and making only one pair of shoes. "Collective Experience" averaged into a single way of doing things doesn't fit many people very well.

Question for ya, tho... There are some troops out there, like the one I mentioned earlier, that do follow the BSA program... from the many, many years where there was no such thing as a new scout patrol, and boys just joined regular vertical patrols.

I've seen a few troops that still have boys participate as board members on BOR's. That, too, was a BSA standard.

So was having the PL's elect the SPL, who was in charge of the Senior Patrol. So was having a functional, cool outdoor uniform in line with the times.

So, might it be possible that a program that holds on to such features as the "collective wisdom of those who have gone before" might be doin' a better job of scoutin' than those who adopt da BSA's newfangled notions sometimes?

And then we have to recognize dat plenty of what is now "official program" (ex. OA, Venture patrols, the 12-point Scout Law) were at one point local adaptations and modifications. Many believe we are richer, and reach more kids, because of them.

Vive la liberte!

Hiya Sunset,

Nice job wit dat pack there! Way to go!

The 5-members-to-charter is a BSA national guideline. Your Scout Executive can waive this requirement if there is a good reason to, so that might be a way to go.

Someone else will have to fill you in on Lone Scouts.

And of course ya can always follow the fine BSA professional tradition and "register the graveyard." Pay for a couple of kids who really aren't members but who agree to have their names used for a year. Who knows, you might pull 'em in. In any event, it's a reasonable workaround if there's no other scouting opportunity for the boys.

Yah, yah, jd. Dat was courteous, eh? One of the things I think is really lacking in these discussions is the ability to laugh at oneself. Lighten up. Blue-L and Red-C were of course humorous kindergarten cariacatures. No need to go all Danish-embassy on me.

Ages back I believed what Eamonn does - that adult help tends to come in proportion to the boys. Yah always have just barely enough. I still think that's true to an extent. Parent drivers / part time helpers / warm bodies do come in proportion to the kids. But not necessarily high-quality "front line" volunteers of the SM/ASM sort. I've also learned that troops of different sizes need different structures and adult talents. Unless those change, you can add as many kids as you want each year, but you'll end up the same size at the end of the year because kids will drop out. I can't tell you the number of times in our district we've helped a troop with recruiting, gotten a bunch of new kids in, and had that happen.

Troops do have natural capacities, eh? Based on der front-line leaders and other things. If you don't set limits up front, it will be self-limiting. Either you set limits up front to make sure every kid in your program gets a great experience, or you let every kid in and the ones who aren't getting a great experience drop out. You have to decide which is more trustworthy, courteous and kind to kids; you also have to consider which is more likely to lead to "adult positive attitudes" vs. "adult burnout."

Just like with outing safety, a good leader recognizes his group's limits, and stops before they are exceeded, eh?

Time to play helper, partner, & "big brother" to a new startup troop.

Sorry to hear about your troop's leader selection methods, CNY. Dat's a problem.

Listenin' to everybody, I think we're really talkin' about different cases:

Case 1: Poor leaders. These "warm bodies" or sometimes "head cases" just aren't likely to be successful. They also aren't likely to use scouting's methods very well; and when they try they fail (ex. "virtual patrols"), or they can't balance (ex. latching on to one standard like uniforming, and using it to browbeat kids).

Case 2: Strong natural leaders, B-P's "right sort." These use the BSA program as a starting point/set of guidelines, then adapt it to the particular needs of their CO, their kids, and/or individual kids in order to better achieve the aims. They understand the principles behind the methods, and use those rather than slavishly following the printed matter.

Case 3: Mediocre/new leaders. These may not yet have the talent/experience to be Case 2, but they're trying. They need things simplified and standardized until they're able to develop their own good judgment.

Standardizing helps Case 3 a bit, doesn't help Case 1 at all, and annoys Case 2.

The BSA's mission and organizational structure is designed around Case 2. At the same time, the BSA tries to help CO's by providing materials to help Case 3 come up to speed. This makes perfect sense for achieving the BSA's aims.

Lisa'bob offers da followin, as an admitted, card-carrying Liberal. It's rational and coherent, so it merits the same response. Perhaps dat will show where we all may care about da same principles, but politely disagree about (or modify?) methods.

So, on that note: Here are some things that I believe as a liberal. Personally I think these beliefs fit rather well with the ideals embodied in the Boy Scout Oath and Law. If you don't think so, by all means, let's talk about it.

**I believe in standing up for freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition, both when in support of and when criticizing those in power. And just because such freedom is uncomfortable for some isn't a sufficient reason to curtail it. (A scout speaks the truth)

No problems here. But both sides, especially many L's in academia and education, don't always live by this credo. So I sympathize with Christians and others who feel that their freedoms of speech and of assembly are often unjustly curtailed, discounted, or ridiculed under the guise of "wall of separation between church and state." It isn't a freedom if you have to do it behind a wall.

**I believe government can be an effective instrument to reduce social ills like poverty, homelessness, lack of access to quality education and medical care, hunger, etc. (A scout is concerned about other people.)

You can believe what you want, but this question has an answer that is objective and independent of whatever you believe. Is the government bureaucracy and enforced taxation really effective at these things? Despite huge "investments," the evidence is mostly lacking. (A scout is Thrifty and Mentally Awake).

**I believe that government can and should intervene in society to improve relations between majority and minority groups of all kinds, and that governments have a responsibility to also protect minority rights, not just majority rights. (A scout is a friend to all.)

The mistake here is believing that government is separate from society (can intervene), rather than a part of society. The founding fathers believed that minority rights were protected by limiting, rather than increasing, the scope of (majority-elected) government. Again, there is an effectiveness test: other than providing real equality under the law (colorblind), the evidence does not suggest success in other areas.

**I believe that there's an important difference between national pride, which citizens have every right to feel and express, and national arrogance, which is to be avoided, and that it is important to try to understand other viewpoints, even if one disagrees. (A scout is true to his ...nation; and, He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.)

Yah yah. I think it's possible to respect a person but think his/her ideas are manure and actions wicked. There are plenty of ideas that have been held by a lot of people that were less than valuable. Soviet communism. National Socialism. Slavery and segregation. Robber-baron capitalism. British colonialism. Fundamentalism in many forms. Some ideas, after having been understood, need to be opposed. A Scout is Brave.

**I believe that one of the best remedies for discontent with government actions and policies is to get involved and work for change. To sit back and wait for others to do it is unacceptable. (If [a scout] thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.)

Sure, one of. Other possible actions are to ignore the blokes and just do what's right yourself, work to curtail the power and influence of government as a whole so it won't be so destructive, or to go burn the stamps and dump the tea in the harbor.

Da biggest difference between your Blue-L and the Red-C's is this repeated notion that "government" is something separate, independent, and more powerful than "neighbor."

Should some of your neighbors be given enforcement powers and allowed to take away your property (taxation) because they feel they can do a better job for society with your money than you can? That's a very different thing than taking money for roads, bridges, and defense that everyone uses. It creates huge divisiveness, because it leads to debates over whose view of "just society" should be promoted at others' expense. Christian "just society?" Islamic "just society?" And it creates huge waste, because by forcibly concentrating resources in "government" it attracts leeches and villians, and then generates bureaucracy to try to protect against leeches and villians. It eventually reaches the point that the leeches, villians, and those seeking a "better society" are spending other people's children's and grandchildren's money.

Yah, how'd I do there, Red?

If training isn't required you will always have people who are too busy.

Yah, and that either means that

a) you have some folks who probably shouldn't be adult leaders, or

b) you have some folks who probably shouldn't be trainers.

Good, committed adults find all kinds of time in their busy lives, but only for training that they perceive is high-quality and worthwhile.

As a district or council, you really can't affect (a). But you should take a really hard look at (b). Over da years, I'll have to say that I've found quite a bit of da BSA training I've done neither high-quality or worthwhile. One bad session really discourages repeat and word-of-mouth customers.

On the troop side of things, from a northern state near Jim_C's, let me offer some "discouragement."

If you live in northern climes (I've seen your Michigan weather!), admitting new 5th graders in December drops them right into the hardest bad/cold weather campouts of the year, with no preparation. Da first experiences with a troop often determine retention.

It's also really hard to have boys "trickle in" to a troop over the course of 4 months and still provide them a coherent program. It's much easier for troops to do a great job for these kids if there's some consistency, that can line up with the election "cycle" for PLs, PLC's, PL training, POR's/Troop Guides, etc.

Finally, it's much better if a den joins as a group, rather than as each boy meets the age requirements.

So I'd say rather than goin' with the minimum in da books, your job as a unit commish is to help the den/pack develop a fun, exciting, and age-appropriate program for their kids through February or even March/April. And then to take a good look at the rest of how they run their Webelos program to figure out what additional help they need so it isn't so "boring."

This is a "problem" that should be fixed by improving the way the Webelos program is delivered, not by passin' the buck to a troop.

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'm a bit confused, eh? Not unusual, my kids tell me.

Jerry, your original post said:

Should it matter how I, you, or anyone else gets across the message of the Core Values to the boys? The answer is yes....It goes back to following standards.

All of us would agree with you in terms of the behavior of the group you mentioned, or the troop Lisa'bob talked about whackin' away at da trees. Those are failures to convey the core principles of scoutin' to boys via any method. They are failures even if the troop is usin' all of the 8 methods "by the book." In fact, if either unit said they were usin' "youth leadership" I'd be suggesting that it was time for some "adult leadership" instead.

It was your above quote dat confuseled me. I wouldn't have a problem with a well-behaved, trustworthy, friendly, and helpful troop at a hockey game if it used non-standard "uniform" pants. If they were fun to be with and cleaned up after themselves, I don't mind a whit whether their SPL was elected by the whole troop, by the PLC, or drawn out of a hat.

So I don't think that it matters exactly how a unit gets across the message of Core Values to the boys, as long as it does. In fact, I think the "how" has to change a bit to match the needs of the particular boys at that moment, even if that "modifies" the standard program.

I'd encourage you to think that way about your upcoming work on behalf of Day Camp. You'll only do a poor to mediocre job if you diligently apply standards equally to everybody. You'll be much more successful if you "help other people at all times" by starting with "standards" and then modifying your support and services to meet the needs of each pack, and each boy.

Yah, yah... I remember bikin' wit some scouts when da rain was realy hail that had partly melted on the way down. Big honkin' raindrops wit these little ice crystals chunks inside that you ran into at 15-20mph + wind.

Of course youth and skill is no match for old age and treachery. If ya timed the rotation out of lead position while watching the squall lines, you could make sure that a scout was in the lead position for each major assault of these "liquid needles". The chant of "Ow..Ow..Ow..Ow!" from da leader set the pace for everyone else....

Der was this troop I knew in my old district in a different council, back when my best friend had a pet triceratops. This troop went to a different agency every month and did a service project as a troop. During part of the project, they'd have someone from the agency talk about the good things that agency was doin'.

They would never sign off for service hours for such "troop" service. If you wanted service hours, you made an appointment with a buddy at one of the agencies you thought was cool, and did your service separately. Service meant "reachin' out yourself." What the troop projects did was provide an introduction to something the boys may not have known about. Naturally, in many cases this kind of "reach out" service became a long term relationship that developed into an Eagle project.

So resqman, it would be better if we just offered introductions to fun topics, eh? "Come and do an orientation flight in an airplane" is somethin' that makes for a good "fair." Then, if a boy wants, he can make an appointment to come back with a buddy, and spend some time doin' aviation MB for real. Or a couple o' lawyers could stage a mock trial with scouts as jurors... give 'em a taste o' issues of law. Then, if some of the kids wanted, they could make appointments to do Law MB. All the kids would learn somethin' and have some fun in either case, and the ones who were juiced by that topic could pursue da full MB experience.

Dat way SA wouldn't be wakin' up in the middle of the night screaming, eh?

Yah, Jerry, dat's exactly what I mean.

There's a troop you admittedly know nothing about, but you're happy to critique them anyway. I know some troops that run fabulous programs that do absolutely no recruiting at all, because they like "the small troop feel." I know packs where the cubmaster does things, and where he delegates; where Blue and Gold is a huge gala, and where Blue and Gold is a simple event. Generally, I've found in most volunteer organizations that it's far better to tailor the job to the talents & interests of the person than it is to shoehorn a person into a pre-existing job description.

Are there weak programs out there? Sure, usually because they've selected the wrong people for jobs, who lack the necessary talent and enthusiasm. Program issues are just a symptom, not the cause. Could every program and person in the world get better? Sure. Not by standardization, but by doing a better job tapping into the unique resources they have. If you really expect anybody to fit your idealized "standard" of Scouting you'll always be disappointed... and you'll be somewhere between annoying and destructive to the many good volunteers out there who run reasonable programs.

If you have waskally wabbits, don't try to make them live in treehouses and eat nuts, even if that's what the book says. Either feed 'em carrots or hire a squirrel. But remember that wabbits need scouting, too.

"A Scout is Thrifty." Maybe it's time we started setting the example. $239.00 is not value for money.

Yah, right on!

There's no real expectation of privacy, but there should be an expectation of courtesy and kindness. Bring the boy in as an individual and:

1) Tell him he's deferred. ("Not yet" is a better thing than "denied").

2) Tell him what he needs to do in order to come back and be successful at his next board.

3) Give him a good, reasonable suggested timeline to do #2, and a lot of encouragement to do that.

4) If #2 isn't possible (ex. he turns 18 tomorrow), let him know his appeal options.

The rules and common sense say that the board has to send the boy a letter with the above stuff detailed. I'd do that promptly, since the chances of him really "hearing" it are going to be low. Copy the SM on the letter. I think a board member should also do a follow-up phonecall to the SM as a courtesy.

There's no reason to tell the other boys... but that really suggests you should always bring them in one at a time to hear the results, not all at once. I'd think in terms of courtesy you'd want to tell them right away anyways, rather than make them stay around until all the boards were done.

An old friend and fellow Beavah once told me "when in doubt, vote for gridlock." Split control at least will stop anyone from railroading an agenda through without debate.

I wonder if I can vote McCain-Lieberman in the next election?

Yah, OK.

Now, I expect most of us evaluate Scout Spirit by what we see inside of scouts, since we can't evaluate it anywhere else.

So, if we're makin' a bigger deal about Scout Spirit outside of scouts, how do you evaluate it? For Eagle, we ask for recommendation letters, but what do you do for the other ranks?