Callooh! Callay!1428010939

Even if you don't need IOLS for the specific training content, there are other reasons to consider taking it.

I went to IOLS to "check the block" but I didn't think I "needed" it. Camping and the outdoors I knew from personal and professional experience. Training, educating, and developing leadership (for adults, not kids, but some things transfer) I knew from professional experience. Scouting policies I knew what I could read - and it's all available for us to read.

But I kept my mouth shut about all that and went into IOLS with open ears and eyes. As it turned out, I was glad I went, and I left grateful to the folks who had put their time and effort into making it happen.

It was an interesting opportunity to become acquainted with other Scouters and learn about some local attitudes. My classmates were an interesting bunch and came from a wide variety of backgrounds and circumstances. I can't say I'd enjoy spending a lot of time with every one of them, but it was worthwhile to spend that weekend with them listening to our various lecturers and instructors on various topics and having our little sidebar discussions.

The food was awful in my estimation; others thought it was good - de gustibus non est disputandum... I guess... but that coffee tasted like sputandum if you ask me. But ain't that just how group logistics work out? And nobody starved.

The greatest benefit was not so much the specified purpose of each training session, but rather the variety of trainers themselves and their individual personalities and ideas. Aside from the primary trainers, we had a number of guest trainers that were all Scouters in the district recognized enough by others to be considered credible lecturers and/or trainers on the various subjects we covered. By meeting, hearing, and talking with these guys, we got insight into the local organizational culture and atmosphere.

Like anything else the quality may vary in different places... but IOLS can be worthwhile even if you don't "need" it.

"It says a lot about you."

Yes, it says that grandstanding moral exhibitionism is not among my selfish reasons for being involved in scouting. I'll let my moral betters bask in the warm glow of their own saintliness. Meanwhile I'll help Scouts other than my sons and help fellow Scouters, not because I'm saintly, but because I happen to be in the neighborhood for my own selfish reasons and doing scouting things anyway.

"are you anything other than a busy body parent??????"

Well yes I am. And thank you for adding "busy body parent" to the list of accolades fellow participants in this forum have awarded me. Since you ask, according to other participant in this forum, aside from your observation that I am a "busybody parent" I am also: a maker of "vague admonishments," a "troll," someone who "can't be bothered to take the time to learn what it's all about," a "hit and run poster," a person with a "chip on his shoulder," a person who makes "assertions based on zero facts," who needs to put on his "big kid boots," who is "obsessed" with his "rants," who makes "personal attacks," and who has a "sense of superiority."

As we examine the "greater experience equals greater prestige" equation... let's recall that some 20 year veterans don't actually have 20 years' experience; they have one year's experience that they've repeated 20 times.

Anyway... prestige? schmestige! You can have it. I'm in for completely selfish reasons but prestige ain't among them. I'm in it for my sons. My ability and willingness to help others along the way are considerable, but nevertheless incidental.

"The best things in life are free.

But you can give them to the birds and bees."

The earlier Eamonn comments sound very sound to me, as does the Basementdweller "BS" comment (assuming here that "BS" meant "bovine scat" rather than "Boy Scouts"). Shaking down parents and volunteers is shameful. We should be embarrassed for those that do it. But we shouldn't be shy about telling them "No." And when they become insistent, persistent, and expectant we should proportionally become more emphatic up to the point of telling them "Not only no, but really... NO!"

"An eligible boat will be made ineligible if the owner adds a sail or motor of any size..."

hmmm.... I see a money making opportunity here... I want the govt contract to install, service, and monitor tracking devices to ensure that these vessels are always rowed or paddled upstream - to ensure no one is just riding with the current.

"I can only assume" --------- Are you sure there are no other options?

"I know you're obsessed with your rants against "helicopter Scouters," but you might try actually studying the Scouting program first." --------- Rants? Please sir, those were treatises... dissertations... expositions. Rants? What a hurtful charge.

"How would you like a boy who skipped breakfast and got sick just before the troop started some big expensive event????? So because of this young mans poor choice the entire group suffers. Some of this stuff can be pretty expensive." ----------- I would be displeased if I suspected his illness was due to skipping breakfast, but would be surprised at myself for entertaining such a flimsy theory about it. I'd also be stunned if somewhere among us, we didn't have some trail mix or something he could eat - maybe some of that junk food we were supposed to confiscate from the other boys. Skipping one meal does not make a healthy person sick... not even on days when they exert themselves. I would assume his sickness was due to something more serious or possibly more of an attitude than an illness (but I'd prefer to err on the side of taking him at his word about illness).

"I am going to be[t] you never have dealt with young men sugar crashing on a backpacking trip or day hike?????"----------- You're right. I haven't. And it's because, while blood sugar level variations within normal range happen to all of us, this debilitating "sugar crash" phenomenon doesn't occur in persons who don't have some serious underlying metabolic disorder. I understand that healthy people experience it as a seriously debilitating phenomenon... just like girls experience fainting at boy-band concerts... but boy bands are not the cause of the fainting. Tired, out of shape boys, are tired, out of shape boys, perhaps also experiencing heat, cold, dehydration, or just plain old hunger (as opposed to a "sugar crash"). They may also have been conditioned to believe in "sugar highs" and "sugar crashes" and that belief may contribute to exaggerated "experience" of normal variations in energy levels.

"So Callooh, where do you draw the line?????

As SM you have a scout show up for the klondike with no heavy outer wear, what is your

responsibility????" --------------Klondike!? Yikes! Where do I draw the line? I don't have to draw a line for that... the lines are already drawn at about 35 degrees North and 35 degrees south... anything outside those lines of latitude is a frozen and inhospitable wasteland into which only the self destructively insane venture. Konldike? Are you kidding? OK. I am... kidding, that is... I've done some subzero Fahrenheit camping and enjoyed it - I understand the appeal. So back to the question.... what's my responsibility? That's a rhetorical question right? You don't actually think I'll say "none" do you?

"As SM you have a 100 pound scout show up for the Backpacking trip with a 50 pound pack???"

Hmmmm.... I see a pattern here... this is another rhetorical question isn't it? What the heck is he carrying in that pack anyway? Wasn't he on any of the shorter walks we did to give each boy the experience that would help him plan for a "real" hike?

"Or the scout who shows up to a summer hike with no water bottle."

Lend him an extra. Be prepared.

"It is my opinion that a leader who does not intervene is negligent. We have sent scouts home for not showing up with appropriate foot wear or outer wear. So is it ok to let a boy dehydrate, blister his feet or get hypothermia just to teach him a lesson. Nope."

I agree... mostly. Certainly with the specific examples you've provided, I agree. You do not let a boy do himself serious harm in order to teach him a lesson. Patrol method and boy leadership be hanged, if it's a serious safety, health, or welfare issue.... you intervene. But, IMO, unless it's really bizarrely over the top, let them enjoy a bit of junk food. If it seems excessive, you may want to mention to a parent... "By the way Mr. Schmavitz, did you know that little (or maybe not so little) Edgar stuffs his pie hole with cheese doodles between meals on camping trips?"

And regarding the OP....... Huh? Only TWO large bags of Doritos? How far is that going to go? That's just enough for two servings. I mean we're talkin' Doritos here..... Although it's beyond me how they could possibly enjoy them without a microwave to melt the cheese on top... and maybe add some pickled jalapeno slices... mmmmmm.

OH.... pardon me, please. I should have posted this in issues and politics.

Every time you go to a boat show or marine supply store, you see it... the suffering on the faces of folks who see all these wonderful marine products on offer, but their health insurance will not cover the costs of vital equipment. So they continue with backbreaking work like raising the anchor without a windlass. We don't talk about it much, but I'm sure we all know people whose boats don't have roller furling... not even for the jib! There are folks out there sailing with horribly outdated navigation equipment, and plenty with no autohelm... imagine having to have somebody man the tiller or wheel at all times when underway! Some don't even have depth finders (well except the keel - that always finds one particular depth every time you reach it... oops). And who is so heartless that he doesn't feel the pain of sailors who have to crane their necks and bend their backs into uncomfortable positions so as to see to navigate because they can't afford sails with transparent windows sewn in for visibility? And how many people get skin cancer because their cockpit has no bimini to shade them from harmful UV rays? I estimate that fully 40% of yacht owners struggle financially as a result of government's policy not to require their health insurance to cover maintenance and equipment upgrades to their boats.

Annually, It can cost anywhere between 10 to 25 percent of the initial cost of a boat to maintain it in safe and serviceable condition. Over the course of a ten year ownership of a modest $100,000 sailboat, bare minimum maintenance costs can easily exceed another $100,000.

When a sailor buys a boat, he expects to be treated equally, to not have the government create untenable burdens that impede his yachting success. He expects his insurance should live up to the American way ...to meet all of his yachting needs.

Where has all the zeal for "boy leadership" and "patrol method" gone? Now helicopter scouters want to micro-manage the boys' camping experience right down to their diet? And even enlist the aid of helicopter parents to interfere with this wonderful opportunity for boys to learn from their dietary mistakes?

Very nice.

Very nice.

"Eengonyama?" No Thanks. "Waka Waka" is more appealing. Not because it was FIFA's 2010 World Cup South Africa official song (soccer? ...yawn) but because Shakira can surely convey some happy optimistic go-to-it-ism:

quoted from above:

"Yet...they are doing the very same thing they cry out against.

Definition of HYPOCRITE

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

hypocrite adjective

And I think even the hippos and hipocrits will agree with this!"

end quote and begin prattle:

Hippos might agree with the definition but discount both the validity and the significance of the observation.

Strolling along the Nile one happy day, I spied a hippo. Warily I navigated past muddy puddles teaming with cercariae eager to afflict me with schistosomiasis, and approached as close as I dared.... to challenge this hippo on his hypocrisy in the very manner you suggest...

Says I to the Hippo:

Mr. Hippo, when Pharaoh decrees that meat must be on the menu at the Hippo smorgasbord, the Hippos object vociferously... "Pharaoh's authority does NOT extend to forcing a Hippo to violate his own conscience and his Hippocratic oath! We are herbivores!"

Now that is all well and good Mr. Hippo; you say that Pharaoh forcing you to serve meat is a wrongful imposition of his values onto your behavior. We peacocks can't help but preen our impressive plumage of compassion and tolerance as we wonder why you are so hateful toward poor animals that hunger for meat... but let us presume for the moment that your motives are pure and that you seek only to follow the Golden Rule. WHY THEN!?!? do you support Pharaoh when he refuses to decree that any animal that wishes to be a Hippopotamus, can be a Hippopotamus. You cruelly claim that there are certain traits critical to being a hippopotamus and that any animal lacking these hippo-critical traits, is not and cannot be a Hippopotamus... no matter how sad that makes him and no matter how hard he tries to mimic hippopotamus behavior. You are cruelly trying to force your hippopotamus values onto all. I say that you are not just being hippo-critical, but also hypocritical! If you really wanted to live and let live, as you protest that you do, you'd support a Pharaonic decree allowing any animal that thinks it is a hippopatamus to be a hippopotamus (and you'd probably be kinder to meat eaters by offering meat at your Hippo smorgasbord too). What say you, Mr. Hippo?

Says the Hippo to me:

Mr. Callooh! Callay!, you have outwitted yourself. You began with a false premise and from it derived a conclusion that wouldn't even follow if your premise were true. You have uncovered no hypocrisy. The comparison of phenomena you offer isn't an apples to apples comparison (mmm... we herbivores like apples). It's not even an apples to oranges comparison (mmm.... oranges are nice too). You've compared apples to um... well, pretty much the opposite of apples, whatever that is (hey these fruity analogies have their limitations and I'm just a hippo - I can't splain everything). And from this false premise you have concluded that there is something wrong with one or more of the Hippo positions on these issues. But that's a non sequitur. Even were Hippos all hypocrites, it would not follow that Hippo positions on any particular issue are wrong. Hippos could be right for wrong reasons, right reasons, or no reasons at all. And even regarding the values about which Hippos can be hypocritical... just because they may fail to live up to the standards they espouse, does not make them bad standards and does not invalidate the utility of advice they may offer based on those standards.

The banks of the Nile are slippery, and the Hippo slipped into verse as he continued to address me:

And by the way, Mr. Callooh Callay!

When Pharaoh reassures us

with gently smiling jaws

we'll immanentize the eschaton

if we but adopt his laws

When he chides us for our fear

of his benevolent guiding hand

And tells us that his love is such

that only fools can't understand...

It's then we ought recall

Caroll's take-off on Watts

that turned his Busy Bee verse round

to express these other thoughts:

"How doth the little crocodile

Improve his shining tail,

And pour the waters of the Nile

On every golden scale!

How cheerfully he seems to grin,

How neatly spreads his claws,

And welcomes little fishes in

With gently smiling jaws!"

And with that, the hippo turned, flatulated, and headed off for deeper waters.

As he waded off, over the noisome miasma of his flatulence, and the aggravating quality of his petulance, I couldn't help but perceive the logic of his argument... and wonder about crocodiles and health care.

"So, correct me if I am wrong."

You are certainly wrong in at least some of what you say when you suggest that all this is "pretty much the definition of arrogant, hippocritical, and obnoxious behavior"

One grows weary of folks hurling charges of being "hippocritical" at others.

It's a great word... etymologically fascinating, and very innovative. But you've misused it here. So here is the requested correction:

Hippocritical: Essential to being a hippopotamus.

Example: Arteodactylism, being semi-aquatic, and being herbivorous, are all hippocritical qualities; an animal that does not have them, is not a hippopotamus.

Common misuse: "Hippocritical" is frequently mistaken to mean "to find fault with hippos or judge them as deficient in some way." But this would be foolish, because Hippos don't tolerate it well. And after plasmodium falciparum, they may be the most dangerous critter in Africa.

"need" ?

No.

It's got it's pros and cons.

Apparently the pros outweigh the cons in the judgment of many.

But we don't "need" it.

Yes. Do breathe deep and step back... from the advice of self-styled grizzled veterans who emphasize their judgment over BSA policy and regale you with tips based on their vast experience.

Grizzled vets they may be, but there are 20-year veterans with 20 years of experience, and there are 20-year veterans who've had the same 1 year of experience 20 times. Both kinds know how to pose as a grizzled vet offering sage advice.

We don't need to question their intentions or motivations. They may be well intentioned pillars of their communities. But YOU are your son's father. Learn what BSA allows/requires and decide what is right according to your judgment. Light your light and let it shine man, don't hide it under a bushel and rely on the lights of others who want us all to go their way.

As self appointed Squadron Commander of Helicopter Parent Squadron One, I offer you this perspective: I will not buckle to just any presumptuous busybody who advises me on how to raise my children. I consider their advice but follow MY judgment. Their way may even be a Right Way, but there are often multiple Right Ways... don't let people pressure you into abandoning the one you prefer unless your preference isn't strong and you've got excellent reasons to give in.

All this advice about "giving him space," letting him "take the lead," "this is his journey not yours," and "your son doesn't need to work on any merit badges for awhile" ... it all comes from people who don't know you, don't know your son, don't know how you relate to him, or what he needs, nearly as well as you do. They presume that you are tugging apron strings and they presume they know best when and how such strings should be cut.

edited to correct a pronoun to its possessive form(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

I agree with all in Shortridge's observation and don't begrudge the 6% the opportunity to enjoy the largeness of this large event that seems too large to enjoy for many of us.

Still just a little dismayed at the packaging.

The more interesting thing is of course the focus on everyone else - like the idea B. Humphries came up with - it'd be interesting to see a survey of Scouts themselves at a patrol level alone the lines of "OK patrol, you're not going to Jambo but hypothetically speaking the cost of it and travel to it is in your possession and you must use is for scouting - what do you do with it?"

The Jamboree 2013 website looks like a drive to round up a herd of cool-cattle whose avatar is Joe Look-How-Awesomely-Cool-I-Am on an all terrain skateboard. That's the most prominent image on the Jamboree homepage - cool skate board dude superimposed over what looks like a rock concert at night. Wish it away. Say it's just couple photos that I'm over-interpreting. But those are THE photos carefully selected, arranged, and placed specifically to convey the first impression of what the organizers want folks to know is the spirit of the thing.

And the words... "Are you in?" - centered and brighter and bigger than the rest of the text... it's at (https://summit.scouting.org/en/Jamboree2013/Pages/default.aspx ). "Are you in?" in this context translates roughly to "whoop-ee-ti-yi-o get along little dogies." It's a phrase used by drovers to round up folks especially keen to run with a herd.

"50,000 of your closest friends?" Yikes! 50 is excessive by far. If 50,000 other adventure seekers are to the east, ceteris paribus, I go west.

The video on the webpage shows thrilling activities. To make such activities simultaneously available to 50,000, one suspects it'll be selections from a McAdventure menu... I'll have the #7 Whitewater McRafting with a side order of Mountain McClimbing please... canned familiarization experiences that run from X:30AM until lunch... with time to select another McAdventure from the menu before dinner. That sounds like a lot of fun. But it doesn't sound like high adventure.

"It ain't your father's jamboree." Yea sure... your father is from fuddy-duddy days back before cool was invented. You, on the other hand, are so cool that you're going to join us for some "seriously high adventure..." along with 50,000 other cool dudes.

Other than the part about making the passage to Hawaii (and back), I like Bart Humphries's thought from another thread: "For that much money, we could all get SCUBA certified, get all our gear, buy an old 30' blue water boat, all the food and water and sail to Hawaii and back." At those prices, scouts do have a lot of options available... particularly if the money is pooled for the big item as in Bart H's scenario... one week of cool-dude McAdventure at Jamboree - or metamorphose you patrol into well equipped Sea-Scouts- or what else can you imagine doing with that budget? To each his own.

Maybe we could liken BSA's current structure to a constitutional republic...

Big BSA sets the basic "constitution" but COs charter units with their unique local cultures and strong elements of self government within the basic framework set by that "constitution."

We don't need a dictatorship of Big BSA owning everything.

We don't need a pure democracy in which some majority of Scouters could override Big BSA's "constitutional" protection of the right of one unit to be a little different from another as long as it's within the basic "constitutional" framework.

Units are different and that's good.

and we say "sneetch" not "sneech"

In this forum we read a lot of disagreement over issues ranging from trivial to relatively significant.

But on this important issue, it's nice to see near unanimity of opinion in that it is serious and demands swift action.

What's described in the OP is beyond an adolescent fit of pique over life's ups and down. And it's outside the realm of juvenile hijinks gotten out of hand.

It seems unlikely that this behavior came out of the blue. If this was not surprising from this boy, one wonders how and why he was still with the troop. And one wonders why other boys would not take their scouting elsewhere if such a situation were festering untreated.

Broken home? Upset over event in his life? Sorry. Neither causes or excuses being a sadistic creep. My capacity for sympathy began to diminish at incident 2.

Star Bellied!?

Please sir, let's not be gauche. Hatch Bellied, if you please.

Did they follow YPT and Guide to Safe Scouting Guidelines?

Did they do the tour planning worksheet/tour permit?

If they did, the OP question is irrelevant because it was a Boy Scout campout, even if it was also a family campout.

If they didn't, then the OP question is an interesting one.

"There are more of us than there are of you. pretty soon we will judge you for NOT having them."

Ah yes. Things change, but the hoi polloi always have ways of identifying elites, and always fantasize about a comeuppance.

Scouts must be registered and YPT and safety considerations must be addressed.

Those are tedious, but valid concerns.

Records must be recorded and administration administered.

Blue Cards are part of a system to help do that and Scouts are courteous and helpful when they make that recording and administering easier.

But beyond those considerations, when an SM starts considering whether he personally "approves" the scout as being "ready" for an MB, or judges him to be "mature" enough, or thinks its the "right time" for that Scout to start the MB.... we may hear the whop-whop-whop blades of Helicopter-Scouterism hovering over the troop to ensure everything goes just-so.

When they think parents or other adults are meddling, the Helicopter Scouters' battle-cry is "Boy Leadership! Don't interfere with MY (oops, I mean the boys') troop! Let them decide and do... even if it means making mistakes." But if a boy shows leadership and initiative in starting an MB... suddenly the Helicopter Scouter thinks it's within an adult's (specifically HIS) reasonable purview to "disapprove" if he thinks the boy isn't "ready," or is too junior in rank, or wants to use a registered counselor the Scout knows (maybe a relative or parent - imagine! the effrontery! why... they might cheat!) rather the unknown person the SM prefers for him. The SM goes beyond YPT, safety, registration, any published pre-reqs, and basic program issues, he wants to judge personally if the boy is "ready." And rather than being ready and able to assign MBCs to boys who don't know any, the SM wants to dictate MBCs to boys who can find qualified ones on their own. Where did Boy Leadership go?

What we afraid of... that the boy will somehow diminish the award by earning it? Lighten up Francis... we're talking MB, not Ranger Tab, or PhD. What? You want to see the kid's GRE scores before you have the dean of the Personal Management MB faculty interview him to see if he'll accept the kid into his program?

That signature block isn't asking the Unit Leader for that kind of "approval." The signature is simply affirming that the boy "is a registered Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, or Venturer (with boxes to check as applicable) of (fill in the Troop, team, crew, or ship), in District (fill in blank), Council (fill in blank) and is qualified to begin working for merit badge noted on the reverve side."

The words "and is qualified" on the card might excite the imaginations of helicopter scouters who wish to judge and dictate more qualifications than the card mentions or than are specifically listed as pre-reqs for the MB. And the Helicopter Scouter's attorney might ask the jury to examine the Scoutmaster's Handbook (page 127 in the 2010 printing) where it reads "a scout may work on any merit badge at any time, assuming they have the approval of their Scoutmaster."

"Quote the published guidance" is a fair game and probably a good one. But there's other published guidance out there that leads one to believe a scout can earn any MB any time... one wonders... aside from safety, registration, or YPT issues, why would a Scouter disapprove a boy to start an MB? Scouters who want to be very restrictive about that, are innovative. Advances like the helicopter, and helicopter scouting require such innovation.