GaHillBilly

I started skimming this post to gain a better understanding of the ''climate'' of this forum . . . and of the personality and positions of some of the frequent posters. Ironically, some of the information here relates pretty directly to a local situation here.

 

A nearby National Park is used frequently by both Boy Scouts and by participants in the "tearoom trade". (We''d taken to calling them ''back-enders'', combining a crude pun with a description of how they park their vehicles!) The park has numerous short trails, which my wife and I have been using for exercise for several years now. (She doesn''t mind, but I *HATE* walking on a track!) Because we walk almost every day, and at different times during the day, we have a pretty good handle on who uses the park. My problem is that I''m preparing to use it with Scouts in my son''s troop, to do the 5-mile hike, the plant and animal ID requirement, and numerous nature related MBs, etc.

 

At the entrance to these trails are small 2 - 5 car parking areas. On most days, between noon and twilight, many of these parking locations will have one or two ''back-enders'' present, either waiting in their car, loitering at the trail head, . . . or else out of sight.

 

 

====================================================================

----- Please, I''d rather not do a pro/con homo debate here! ------

----- But, so you''ll know where I''m coming from . . . -----

 

 

For the record (and NOT debate), I personally am fairly uncomfortable about encountering homosexuals. This has remained true, even though I''ve had several work relationships, and even a couple of friendships, with homosexuals, in varying degrees of ''outness''.

 

There are at least three sources of my discomfort. First, I was brought up in the Bible Belt. Second, I had a homosexual uncle who spent several months attempting to seduce me, when I was my younger son''s age (12). Fortunately, he was stopped before I understood what was going on, and before he''d made any clearly sexual advances. Third, I had some fairly unpleasant experiences while traveling in Europe during the 70''s hippie hitchhiker era. (No one had warned me that a young male tourist traveling alone might as well wear a neon sign, lettered "Find Fresh Meat Here!")

 

For these reasons and some others, I''m not prepared to accept that just now in the 21st century the historical association of homosexuality with pederasty has somehow been severed.

 

One further observation: I was fascinated by tjhammer''s explanation of the differences and tensions between the "old gay culture" and the "new gay culture", and by acco40''s post about Humphrey''s research. Both were very enlightening, and helped me understand some of the things we''ve observed, like why most of the ''back-enders'' seem to be nearer my age -- 53 -- than we would have expected.

 

 

--- And now, back to our regularly scheduled question: -----

====================================================================

 

 

 

Anyhow, the regular presence of these ''back-enders'' in these locations means that both the Scouts I''m working with AND their parents WILL encounter these guys. And THAT means I have some questions to answer.

 

 

+ What should I tell the parents?

 

My son knows exactly who these guys are, but the informational approach we take to such topics in my family is MUCH more open than what is typical in this community. My sister, for example, is stunned at the things we talk about openly, even though our beliefs about what people should *DO* aren''t much different than hers.

 

I gather that ''sex education'' is a somewhat verboten topic both in the BSA, all the child safety stuff notwithstanding.

 

 

+ What should I tell the kids?

 

 

+ How should I deal with the risk that the kids might see something they shouldn''t?

 

For the record, I think the risk is quite small. The ''back-enders'' have their little side trails, near the parking areas, and off the main trail. We know where those trails are, and where they go, and can pretty much avoid them. Ironically, after covering over 2,000 miles by foot, the one time my wife and I have seen public sex in the park it was of the heterosexual flavor, and the couple involved was much younger than the ''back-enders''. But, the ''back-enders'' actual frequency of ''activity'' is apparently greater than that of the recreational hetero couples. So, the risk is not minuscule.

 

 

+ How great is the risk that a ''back-ender'' would actively approach a Scout?

 

-- Please answer ONLY if you have factual information, from personal experience, RELIABLE testimony, or other RELIABLE sources! --

 

(For the record, I take that the risk is somewhat high. Over the past 15 years, there''ve been 2 or 3 arrests of an older male for unwanted sexual contact (attempted or actual) at the restroom at a public beach of a nearby lake. And, I''ve been personally told by several police officers, who were taking the same aikido class I was, that the problems were greater than what was reported.)

 

 

All responses appreciated.

 

GaHillBilly

 

(If it''s more appropriate, I''d be happy for my question to be editorially moved to a new thread. It''s just that it appeared that some of the posters following this thread would be able to help.)

Again, I''ll note my experience with Scouting is limited.

 

But, I''ve worked with youth enough in enough different situations to observe all of the following:

 

+ Home schooled youths tend to relate to adults VERY differently than do mass-schooled youths.

 

+ Certain adults are respected and listened to by youths -- pretty much no matter what. My 84 year old uncle is one example: I''m totally confident that I could bring him on a camping trip, and by the end of the trip, not all the Scouts would like him, but they all would listen to him.

 

+ Other adults are pretty much ignored by youths, limited only by their own views of courtesy and obligation. My son who is a Scout has had a Sunday School teacher who is ignored that way. He''s a great guy; tremendous integrity; a hard worker; really cares about the kids, etc. But, he wants to be ''nice'' to everybody, and it takes about 5 minutes for the hard headed kids in any group to discover they can run all over him, which they then immediately precede to do.

 

+ Still other adults are a mixed bag. My 83 year old father is an example. He''s sold bikes for years, and has almost always had, at any given time, a few teenagers who would hang around his shop, just so they could be around him. He likes who he likes, and dislikes who he dislikes, and treats people (including youths) according to how he feels about them. Those he likes, he''d do anything to help. Those he doesn''t, return the favor, by disliking him.

 

+ And then there are the adults that assume that because they are older, they know more than the youths, and then proceed to treat the youths as if they were as incompetent as infants, but much less ''cute'' . . .

 

There are a LOT of adults like that!

 

 

I''m pretty sure youths are treated differently by youths, as well. The former SPL in my son''s troop, who is a self-absorbed and very bright kid with poor social skills, was liked, but ignored by the younger scouts. The new SPL is just beginning to grasp the job, but he has incredible social skills AND is willing to learn, so the kids do not ignore him.

 

So, while there may be general rules that often apply to how Scouts relate to SPL''s versus adults, I think it still has a lot do do with who the adult is, and who the SPL is.

 

GaHillBilly

Noticed one poster reporting FF 2.0.0.3 .

 

There are some URL based exploits that affect both IE and FF. They are not (to the best of my knowledge) FULLY fixed in either browser, but I know FF / Mozilla has been issuing patches to fix bits and pieces of this problem

 

The CURRENT FF version is 2.0.0.6! Compared to 2.0.0.3, it DEFINITELY is less vulnerable. I think that there''s an equivalent patched version for the 1.5 series.

 

So . . . if you are using FF, go to Help|Check for Updates , and patch up to the latest version. It only takes minute or so, if you''ve got cable. On a modem, you''ll probably have time to go make a pot of coffee, though.

 

GaHillBilly

It might be worth trying Firefox (www.firefox.com) -- I've logged in multiple times in the past week, and never seen that issue. Most browser exploits target IE, both because it's the #1 browser, and because FF tends to be more secure and resistant to such problems.

 

This does not, of course, address the problem of a server hack or exploit, allowing the presence of some code redirecting you to the Chinese hacker site.

 

For what it's worth, the entire login process has components that are written in an IE-only manner. I actually had to scan through page HTML source code, on the new registration page, in order find the URL for the page that was the next step. The 'next' button (or whatever button it was) didn't work in FF, but I was able to register OK, once I found the page URL's and entered them manually.

 

I don't know if this IE-only code is related to the browser exploit, or not.

 

GaHillBilly

Trevorum wrote:

 

"I dont believe that an artificially homogenous social group is healthy for young, developing minds."

 

Why? Within all the mammalian orders I can recall, social groups are homogenized by 'artifice' or, more often, by force. Those that fit and submit, are included. Those that don't, are excluded. Why should humans be different? Why would you think, based on either trendy and modern psycho-biological principles, or else on old fashioned religious ones (you pick the religion), that this is wrong?

 

I know it's 'diversity' is, and has been, a trendy membership 'marker' word of approbation within the community of the politically correct. But like most 'marker' words, it's come to mean almost nothing, except to indicate approval or disapproval. It's sort of like the term 'family values' in the evangelical community -- a phrase which means has no specific meaning whatsoever.

 

OK, we get it: you like the GSUSA's political and social values, and you don't like the BSA's. But, I'm guessing that's not news to most of the regulars here, and it's certainly not a rational argument for or against anything.

 

 

 

 

"That smacks of "separate but equal"."

 

Your phrasing suggests you are arguing *ad hominem*, by subtly invoking civil rights issues. If so, that seems to me to be an illegitimate and underhanded argument in this context.

 

 

 

 

'You say, "AHG allows all kinds of legitimate diversity ..." suggesting you have some notion of "illegitimate" diversity.

Presumably, you see some differences as good (hair color? blood type?) and other differences as bad (religion? gender identity?). I don't think I agree with characterizing some diversity as legitimate and others as illegitimate.'

 

You may have been sincere when you wrote this. You may actually think you believe it.

 

But it's just nonsense! Every non-anarchist social order distinguishes between tolerated, and un-tolerated, diversity. I challenge you to name even one recognizable and stable social community that does not exclude (or censure, punish, exile, whatever) individuals engaging in some behavior or other.

 

And, once you exclude (or censure) any person because of their nature, appearance, or behavior, the game's up! There's no longer any debate about whether a distinction exists between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' behavior. The only debate is about which things are legitimate, and which are not.

 

Whose on YOUR list of evil (or "unacceptable", if you want to be trendy) people?

 

Pedophiles? Rapists? Members of M-9? Old fangled primitive cannibals? New fangled Goth vampire cannibals?

 

Your only way out is to engage the classic, but rationally bankrupt, argument that such people aren't really people. This argument has been used often. Black slave? Not a real person: enslave them! Bourgeoisie capitalist? Not a real person: send them to Siberia! Homosexual? Not a real person: give them a pink armband, and schedule their shipment to Buchenwald! Do you really want to jump on that bandwagon?

 

The problem with the argument is that there's NO basis, on either traditional religious grounds, nor on PC evolutionary behaviorist ones to argue that such people are outside the species. However much you dislike it, they are still *homo sapiens* --wise apes -- no matter how 'brutish' their behavior.

 

Many today wish to suggest, if not quite argue, that internal compulsion justifies, or at least exculpates evil behavior. But, again there's no consistency here. By all reports I've seen, the emotional (& biological??) drive felt by pedophiles to engage in sex with pre-pubertal youths is stronger, at least in its effect, than the sexual drives of adult-oriented heterosexuals or homosexuals.

 

You can't have it both ways: either there is a valid distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" diversity within social groups, or you must go hug the nearest pedophile on your state's registry, and invite them to volunteer with your GSUSA or BSA troop!

 

 

 

 

"You also say, "Diversity ... is a lesser-order good than ... Judeo-Christian values" Here, I am pretty sure that my Hindu and Buddhist friends would disagree with you."

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

If you mean that your particular friends, who you know by name and personal history, and who happen to be include both Buddhists and Hindus, would also happen to disagree with the other posters, and agree with you . . . who can argue with you: you certainly are better acquainted with your friends than we are. And after all, it's not so surprising that you are friends with people who think like you do -- people do that, no matter what opinions they have about 'diversity'!

 

But, if you are speaking of Hindus and Buddhists generically, and are using the term 'friend' only as an expression of your attitude toward them, well that's another matter.

 

There's enormous variation, among Buddhists and Hindus, in their religious practices and philosophical beliefs. Those faiths, when considered as they are actually practiced, embody an overwhelmingly confusing jumble of austere and acetic philosophies mixed all together with varying proportions of animism, demon worship, ancestor worship and more. The jumble is so great and the variations so extreme, that simply identifying someone as a Hindu says very little about what they, as individuals, either believe or practice. The saintly and pacifistic Hollywood Buddhism so popular in the press is not, so far as I can tell, much practiced by anyone. People forget that both Richard Gere AND Steven Seagal claim to be practicing Buddhists.

 

So, when you try to bring in the genius of the tolerant Buddhist or Hindu, in support of Western post-modern ideas of diversity, you are claiming support from a doubtful ally. Such arguments are likely to carry weight only with the converted, the careless, or the uninformed.

 

The fallacy is especially obvious, since two nations clearly exhibit the level of 'diversity' tolerated by practicing Hindus and Buddhists. Again, not all may be old enough to remember what was at stake in the Pacific Theatre of WWII, but I am. There are plenty of Koreans -- Buddhist and Christians alike -- still alive that could give you lessons in the practical and actual diversity tolerated by the Buddhists of Japan. Likewise, you can, if you wish, go and talk to the Dalits of India, in many places still forced by the 'tolerance of Hinduism' to creep out at night, where they clean up the ordure of Brahmin or other members of higher castes, who possibly are relatives of your friends.

 

If you wish to retort that 'real' Buddhists or Hindus do not behave so, I can reply, without either irony or hypocrisy, that 'real' Christians do not despise or hate homosexuals, though they may not wish them to be teachers for their children.

 

Hindu and Buddhist 'tolerance' is a chimera, a phantasm of optimistic west coast wishful thinking: historically, really real Buddhists, and particularly, really real Hindus have made up some of the most intolerant societies in history.

 

 

 

 

"Not that it matters of course, because you evidently wouldn't want to associate with them in the first place."

 

Not "evidently", at least in terms of the posts themselves; unless you have outside or prior knowledge of the poster, you have no evidence, only presumption concerning who he/she would want to associate with.

 

 

 

 

"But of course it begs the questions of which "Judeo-Christian values" you mean. The ones shown by Lot when he offered his virgin daughters to the crowd? Or later, slept with them himself?"

 

Are you truly unable to distinguish in the texts that which is descriptive, from that which is prescriptive? Or have you just never actually read those passages? The relevant passages are found in Genesis 18 & 19; even a cursory reading makes it obvious that Lot's behavior throughout exemplifies both evil values and evil actions!

 

 

 

 

 

"Or the ones shown by Abraham when he tried to murder his son?"

 

Admittedly, a more difficult passage, and far too complex to either explain or try to defend here. But, whatever Abraham was doing, it was NOT attempted murder. By definition, murder is not simply killing, but rather *wrongful* killing. Contrary to the misleading translation, the command has always been, "Thou shalt not kill wrongly (or murder)" and never simply, "Thou shalt not kill". By very definition (within Judeo-Christian ethics) God (or YHWH) owns the lives of all creatures; taking such a life by His command clearly IS killing, but is just as clearly -- by very definition -- NOT murder. If there WAS an Abraham who attempted to sacrifice his son, then there was also a God who owned the very lives of them both.

 

I realize that in current post-modern Western culture, the very idea that anyone could have a RIGHT to take your very own personal life is odious in the extreme. But, throughout most history and most religions, there has been nothing strange at all about such ideas. Japan's Buddhist Samurai, for example, clearly and explicitly accepted their lord's right to command their death, either by execution or by suicide.

 

 

 

 

"But my point is that "Judeo-Christian" values are all over the moral compass and have no natural advantage over say, Buddhism or the Wiccan Rede."

 

This is just silly. You are throwing undefined terms -- "natural advantage" -- about with abandon.

 

What can you possibly mean by such a term? If you mean the obvious, then you are obviously wrong. Cows who prefer long lives obviously experience a 'natural advantage' under Hindu ethics as practiced in India. On the other hand, Dalits who wish to walk in daylight obviously experience a 'natural advantage' under Western laws which reflect (poorly, perhaps) Roman jurisprudence mingled with Christian ethics. The 'advantage' found, depends on the outcome valued.

 

But this only begs the question which is, after all, about which values should prevail.

 

The more fundamental point is whether it's possible for one ethical system to be more correct than another. Post-modernist thought trumpets the idea of a kind of truth that applies to all men, whether they like or not, as both impossible and self-contradictory. But, of course this concept is immediately abandoned by all the post-modernists I know of, every time they count their change at Walmart, or ask for the correct treatment for a chest infection, or file a complaint against an unknown burgler who robbed them. Somehow, under these circumstances, they miraculously recover their faith in a truth that the same for them AND for the cashier!

 

If there's no universal truth, then preference for one ethic over another is only a matter of he-said-she-said, with no resolution in sight. Yet again, all the post-modernists I know seem to consider the command, "Thou shalt not kill ME" to be both universal and absolute!

 

 

 

 

"I'll take diversity every time."

 

I doubt it.

 

I rather imagine you'll take diversity, only so long as you get to define it YOUR way, either with content specific to the occasion, or else as a marker of membership, approbation or disapprobation. Your arguments suggest that your real objection is NOT with exclusion itself, but is really just a quarrel over WHO should be excluded!

 

I remain confident that your 'inclusive' diversity STILL excludes pedophiles, cannibals, . . . and possibly even, 'right wing nut jobs'. If someone else defines diversity to include some of those you wish to exclude (even though you lack, by your own argumentation, any apparent basis for doing so), I rather imagine you will object strenuously to such an *inclusive* diversity!

 

After all, I very much doubt that you ARE a member of NAMBLA!

 

 

GaHillBilly

As I've noted before, I and my son are new to Scouting. But my wife and I are long time homeschoolers, and have been thinking about how to raise and teach adolescents for years. For a number of reasons, we've both come to believe that the lack of peer "socialization", which has been a primary criticism of homeschooling, is, on the whole, a great benefit.

 

My recent involvement with Scouting has given me a new perspective from which to rethink and refine this conclusion. In particular, I've come to suspect the problem is not precisely peer association, but rather peer association in groups and activities not structured or shaped by adult direction and value systems.

 

Of course, my basis for these conclusions has only been anecdotal evidence and personal observation and analysis . . . till now.

 

Recently, articles reporting on research by a Dr. Robert Epstein have been appearing within home school periodicals and web publications. Dr. Epstein argues -- based on apparently extensive research -- that the phenomenon of 'adolescence' is entirely a creation of recent Western culture, writing that, "Anthropological research reveals that teens in many cultures experience no turmoil whatsoever and that teen problems begin to appear only after Western schooling, movies and television are introduced."

 

I haven't had a chance to receive his complete book yet, much less read it. But from what I've been able to gather, much of his research would support, to a rather extraordinary degree, the youth development philosophy behind Scouting.

 

Perhaps the most accessible place to start, if you are interested in reading more, is with this interview:

http://www.crosswalk.com/homeschool/11551480/print/

 

A full PDF of the article that appeared in "Scientific American Mind" can be downloaded from this link:

http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein%20-%20THE%20MYTH%20OF%20THE%20TEEN%20BRAIN%20-%20Scientific%20American%20Mind%20-%204-8-07.pdf

(if clicking the link doesn't work, copy, and remove word-wraps => the URL must be ONE line)

 

If you want to read the PDF eventually, you might want to download it now. I'm not sure what the copyright and reprint agreements are, but the same download costs $$ from Scientific American.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

Ugg! Clear as mud.

 

It sounds like the actual practice in different councils varies quite a bit. I interpret the responses collectively as evidence that there's no clear and absolute guidance from national on the question, "To LTP or NOT to LTP?", at least with respect to local events with no transportation provided.

 

Given that practice varies, it sounds like I need to back off for the moment, put my ear to the ground locally, and find out what will be acceptable and not cause a ruckus here.

 

Thanks,

 

GaHillBilly

 

PS: I envy anyone in a council that can get an LTP back in a day. I had to camp out in the office of the records secretary for a total of 5 hours, spread over three days, all while smiling nicely, and making flattering conversation, just to get my merit badge counselor status completed. This took place 3 MONTHS after the original application had been submitted by the CC.

 

I don't know how common a problem it is, but I've already discovered that boys in this council absolutely need to maintain their own independent but authenticated paper records of advancement and merit badge progress.

 

 

Hi All;

 

I've got another question, concerning the swim training / MB work / checkout activity I'm trying to arrange: I just took my first detailed look at a Local Tour Permit . . . and it doesn't seem to apply!

 

Point #1: It appears the MB counselors can meet with (2) or more Scout counselees, with no other adult present, and no LTP required.

 

Point #2: No LTP is required for the regular Scout meeting.

 

Point #3: No LTP is required (I think! Corrections?) for an individually scheduled meeting of the PLC.

 

Point #4: The LTP self-describes itself as being "for trips and camps under 500 miles".

 

Point #5: The language (and blanks) of the LTP are 'all about' modes of transportation from point A to point B. The permit itself authorizes "all travel between _______ and _____".

 

etc.

 

Conclusion #1: The LTP, and requirements that an LTP be filed, do not apply to an event or activity where the guardians provide (or arrange for) transportation to point A, unless the Scouts LEAVE point A to go to point B by means of BSA / Troop provided transportation.

 

Conclusion #2: The regulatory 'trigger' for an LTP is transportation from A to B, rather than the nature of the activity taking place at A.

 

My problem is that some of the training I want to do will need to take place at locations that will be available (or useful) on short notice. For example, I'm expecting to have access to a local prep school indoor pool on a Saturday or Sunday PM within the next 3 weeks. But, I'm not going to know which dates are available till early next week. Once I do, I'll have to check with the parents to see which dates work best. But . . . at that point, it will be too late to file an LTP within the time frame allowed. The key is that the parents would be delivering and picking up the Scouts at the pool itself, and would be welcome to stay and observe if they like.

 

I've already spoken with someone at the Council. She initially told me that an LTP was required, but the conversation quickly went out of her 'comfort zone' once I began asking about how to fill our the form, since it requires two locations (a origin and a destination), and so on. From the way she responded, I'm guessing I've stumbled into a regulatory inconsistency, which is likely handled in different ways at different times. (I know that LTP's are not being filed for all MB / Scout meetings.)

 

My options, as I understand them are:

 

1) File a blizzard of presumptive LTP's, for all possible future activity, and then cancel all the ones I don't need.

 

2) File on a regular I-am-really-planning-this basis, and just bail out and reschedule if I guess wrong.

 

3) Don't file, using a letter-of-the-law defense against any challenges.

 

4) Count the activity as an 'embed' within a PLC meeting. (This is possible, since the focus of all these activities is to train PLC members so they can train the troop members.)

 

5) Other options, which you may suggest?

 

Let me say in advance, for a number of reasons, we WILL have 2 registered adults at all events; we WILL adhere to all BSA safety standards (to the best of my knowledge) for any activity, etc.

 

My problem is the 3 weeks minimum time frame required to complete and submit an LTP.

 

To give another example, I'm working with several scouts on a number of the nature related merit badges, and on nature-related rank advancement requirements. (Again, all can be considered members of the PLC.) In a nearby park (less than 10 miles from the regular troop meeting location), the absolute prime time to spot numerous types of wildlife (or wildlife sign) is just after a heavy rain which follows on a dry period, or a snow shower. You can go the park now, walk for hours, and see nothing but deer or squirrel. Go after the rain or snow, and you see many other animals, or else 'sign' of them.

 

If it's permitted, I could call parents / Scouts and invite them on 24 - 48 hr notice to participate in a short hike (5 miles or less) with the parents dropping off, and picking up the Scouts at the trail parking lot. Obviously, I haven't mastered scheduling either the rain or snow, so filing advance LTP's is impossible, except on a speculative basis.

 

But, I don't want to stir up a firestorm at the Council, nor cause problems for the troop's SM. Favorable precedents established elsewhere might help, if any such exist.

 

I do recognize that it may be the intent of BSA National to require LTP's for all activities except regular meetings, and PLC meetings. In this case, the proper (and prudent!) thing is to simply recognize that that their forms don't fully reflect their intention, and accept that the price of a well-ordered organization is a certain amount of lumbering inflexibility.

 

Advice, please?

 

GaHillBilly

 

PS: Forgive me, but I'm hoping to use the forum here to ask questions that are too difficult to ask locally and face to face.

"What a shame that this behavior went on for so long and no one felt it necessary to let the Council know about it!"

 

I think you are missing the point: EITHER the council execs didn't know because they either didn't want to know OR they knew, and didn't care! I never knew which it was. However other information I have made it clear (at least to me) that it was one or the other. I can't share these details without identifying more than I'd like to do.

 

Please keep in mind that people like the camp director were hired DIRECTLY by the council execs. The far, far left political and social activist types they hired were ALSO selected by the council. And, remember that these issues existed during the entire period we worked there, which was for a period longer than 10 years.

 

I realize that organizations, such as the Catholic Church and the BSA, have covered up some very nasty dirt, in order to protect 'the good name' of the organization. I've seen similar behavior in a smaller organization I was associated with. In all cases, I consider such cover-ups to be the wrong choice. However, it is pretty clear to me that neither the Catholics nor the Boy Scouts considered the dirt to be anything other than nasty.

 

By contrast, there is a very strong suspicion in my mind that the GSUSA -- or a least the local council -- did not see the 'dirt' I described to be all that 'dirty'. There was a tremendous focus, within the council, on ACA compliance, and they worked very hard and successfully on that. Clearly, they could and did manage in such a way as to accomplish goals they valued.

 

I could never 'prove it', but I strongly believe the problems in the camp reflected the values held by the local board and the council execs. I wish I could detail the situation further, but it's simply not prudent for me to do so. Among other things, the council board during that period included several very high power attorneys, who were very active in support of organizations considered -- at least in the non-Atlanta regions of the South -- to be very far left. I would not want to tangle with them.

 

GaHillBilly

OK, "GSUSA"

 

"What exactly were these "things" you saw at that one camp you visited?"

 

+ Sexually promiscuous staff, who

-- discussed various sexual activities, in our (all male) hearing, while also in the presence of Brownie (is that still the right term?) aged girls. One staffer, while standing just outside the bathhouse as young girls were going in and out, discussed at length and in exact detail what she was going to do to, and with, her boyfriend during the upcoming week off. She stated loudly, and with much laughter from her audience, that she had warned him that he'd better have been being faithful, and better not last more than 15 seconds the first time. I was working on some equipment near the bathhouse, and was within 10 feet of her when she made these comments.

-- offered themselves sexually to at least two of my workers, not in the hearing -- but still in the presence -- of girls.

-- foreign staffers who were described to me their plans to finance further travels in the USA by working briefly in Las Vegas as hookers. I initially thought that they were just trying to mess with me, but when I expressed some disbelief, they went into some considerable detail.

-- staffers who fit the "hairy legged lesbian man-hater" stereotype to a degree I would have never believed, if we hadn't experienced it. I didn't know, prior to those experiences, that such people actually existed! In one cases, the level of misandry and hostility was so great that we could not do our work, and had to have the Council office intervene.

 

+ Several of my workers -- all married or engaged -- had a problem one year with a particular counselor. The opening of the tent where this counselor lived faced the service road we often used. On at least two occasions, this counselor managed to position herself where she could give my workers a bare 'crotch shot' as they drove down the road. She gave particular attention to one of my employees, who was getting married that same summer. He was rather terrified of her, and we ribbed him mercilessly about his "girlfriend at camp". This same camp staffer offered to take me on a personal tour of an 'adult' motel (now closed) that was about 20 miles from the camp. When I declined, she noted that it wouldn't cost me anything, since she'd cover the costs. She knew I was married, though I can't remember if she'd met my wife.

 

+ Another year, I was personally solicited by the camp director. It was a rather frightening experience for me, since I was older, larger, and much stronger than this young woman and since we were in an isolated location at the time. I was very concerned about the possibility of a false accusation. I was also stunned, and couldn't initially believe what was happening, since I knew that she was at that time the lesbian lover of the Aquatics Director of facility in a nearby metro area. I can only assume that she was bisexual. In any case, I left at a near run when she attempted to show me (I'm not making this up!) where a yellow jacket had stung her UNDER the front of her very brief running shorts. I immediately made contact with several other staffers in such a way that I could later verify the time of that contact.

 

+ Other items are too politically incorrect, too likely to identify the specific facility, or too explicit to mention here.

 

Of course, there were people at the camp with whom we had good relations. Actually, I never had any work related problems with the camp director who solicited me -- but I did make sure I was never again alone with her. Also, the episodes mentioned above do not reflect behavior that was typical of all, or even most, our service calls. But, they do reflect patterns that were maintained over the entire period of our association with the camp, which continued for over ten years!

 

And to forestall any questions along the lines of 'why didn't you report it', there were numerous reasons.

 

First, I had good reason to believe that some in the Council office were as aware as they wanted to be of these problems. Second, many of these experiences, if reported, would have immediately devolved into a 'he-said-she-said' squabble; we could prove nothing. Third, we often worked in situations where it would have been easy for a hostile staff to create false, but credible, accusations. Given that there were almost always a couple of staff individuals holding to both the "men are parasites on womyn-kind" concept, and the post-modernist dictum that "truth is whatever you distort it to be" . . . we were suspected that that any reports we made were more likely to result in serious retaliatory accusations, than in beneficial change. As I noted above, the Council staff knew as much about the Camp as they wanted to know -- they mostly avoided it completely.

 

My relationship with this facility ended some years ago, when many of the staff, at both the camp and in the Council were replaced. I never pursued it, but I assume that anyone who'd had a long relationship with the facility was somewhat suspect. Frankly, given the things I'd gradually become aware of over the years, I thought only prudent that a new administration treat all prior longtime subcontractors as suspect. I assume that this was the reason I was dropped, but I never pursued it, since my business was taking a different direction. Please note that the focus of the 'house-cleaning' was NOT, so far as I ever knew, the issues I described above, but was wholly focused on some management and financial problems.

 

GaHillBilly

As the original poster, I'd like to thank all who've participated. It's been both helpful and enlightening.

 

+ To those who've pointed out that most Boy Scouts can't float, not because they are lean, but because they are thrashing around, I can only say . . . it's my guess that you are right, and that that's something I'll need to keep in mind. I'm saving this page, and will learn and apply, as needed, some of the help-them-float techniques described here.

 

+ But, I'm not surprised to see the confirmation that there have been occasional and widespread problems due to a rigidly written requirement that can NOT be completed as written by some fit Scouts who are excellent swimmers.

 

+ I'm also not surprised to find that I'm not the only one who's experienced 'near-drowning' as a result of a literal and doctrinaire application of this requirement. I would ask those of you who still think everyone can float, to consider how frightening and demoralizing it can be to experience this -- even if it only happens to a few boys -- especially for boys who are much better swimmers than those around them who are passing with ease.

 

+ I am surprised and encouraged that a number of apparently experienced Scout leaders handle the issue with a flexible and informed 'adaptation' of the requirement.

 

+ I should probably say that I remain unconvinced of the practical value of a face up float as a self-rescue technique. Someone who finds it difficult to swim breast or side stroke in chop or swells is not going to be able to 'rest' floating face up! Maybe it's a useful 'rest' at the conclusion of a swim test . . . but that's pretty artificial situation.

 

+ I knew this, but should have mentioned it earlier: experienced swimmers find an easy freestyle (Australian crawl) very, very restful. I remember learning to swim well as adult, about 15 years ago, and I remember the 'drowned rat' feeling I got from 25 yards of face-in-the-water freestyle, but I tend to forget about it now. My sons have never experienced that feeling themselves. For all of us, as for most experienced swimmers, easy freestyle is no more strenuous than strolling at a 1 - 2 mph pace! Again, experienced swimmers can 'feel' the water around their heads, and can co-ordinate their breaths so that they breathe between the waves.

 

+ Also, experienced swimmers swim breast stroke as a partly or mostly face-in-the-water stroke. It's very easy to adapt this stroke to swimming in rough water, without breathing in anything but air.

 

+ The consensus among the experienced swimmers I spoke to is that, in order of preference, breast stroke, side stroke and free style (crawl) are the preferred methods to 'rest' in open water. No one I checked with would be willing to swim backstroke in open water. I do recognize that elementary backstroke is possibly a good way for weak swimmers to rest, if in VERY calm water.

 

+ I appreciate all the tips about working with weak swimmers. I know this info will help me. I'd like to return the favor by offering a tip for many of you, concerning the absolute BEST way to turn weak swimmers into good swimmer: SUMMER SWIMMING. In most metropolitan areas around the country, there is some type of competitive summer swim league. If you can get any of your boys to participate, I would encourage you to do so. 2 - 3 summers of swimming competitively can make a HUGE difference in both skills and confidence. The cost is very low ($100 - 200 for the summer) compared to that many hour of swim instruction, and the practice (usually 3 - 5 days per week, 1 - 2 hours per day, for 8 - 10 weeks) is invaluable. Once learned, swimming well tends to be a lifelong skill.

 

Thanks again,

 

GaHillBilly

Thanks, all.

 

This thread has given me a lot to think about. Even some of the conclusions or comments I disagree with, have still helped me think through the situation here. Hopefully, all this will end up benefiting the boys.

 

A couple of final notes:

 

+ In its current issue, US News & WR has a series of articles I found helpful. Maybe some of you will, too. Here's the link to the central article:

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2007/08/31/how-to-win-the-weight-battle.html

 

 

Also, some corrections:

 

Camp Merrill IS near Dahlonega, but it is NOT "home to the 75th Ranger Regiment". As you can see here,

http://www.soc.mil/75thrr/75th_home.htm ,

the 75th RR is based as follows

* lst Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Hunter Army Airfield, Ga.

* 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis, Wash.

* 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.

 

All Rangers are "headquartered" at Fort Benning, regardless of where they are stationed. (See link above).

 

Camp Merrill is 'home' (such as it is) to the 5th Ranger Training Battalion. The second stage of Ranger School is conducted at, and around, Camp Merrill (see https://www.infantry.army.mil/rtb/rtbmain.asp). But not all members of

the 75th RR have completed "Ranger School"; my impression is that only a minority have. As I understand it, anyone who is a current member of the 75th is considered a "Ranger" -- even if they have not complete the "Ranger School". On the other hand, infantry officers and non-coms in other Army units may (must?) wear the Ranger tab by virtue of having completed the school. Some Marines also have completed the school, but I don't know if they can wear the tab. I assume, but didn't check, that the Marine instructors on TDY at Camp Merrill do wear the tab.

 

Finally, I wouldn't know whether someone in the local council considers that the Ranger Scout camp is part of "Camp Rainey Mountain's summer program". What I do know is that the application process is entirely separate of the Camp Rainey application, has a separate fee, lasts 6 days, and takes place either at Camp Merrill proper, or at Yonah Mountain. We are not in that council, and heard about it through military contacts, rather than through the BSA.

 

GaHillBilly

This topic caught my eye, even though I'm here for BSA, not GSA.

 

For a number of years, I had a fairly close business relationship with the local GSA council, and particularly with the camp. I have NO complaints whatsoever with respect the business relationship; I was treated well and fairly, and tried to do the same.

 

But . . .

 

Due to the things I saw at GSA camp, I have warned MANY friends and acquaintances that the GSA camp I saw was not at all compatible with the values they held. I cautioned them that if they desired that their girls adopt similar values, they might want to investigate staff values and practices very closely before turning their daughters over to GSA staffers.

 

In fact, these observations were one of the primary reasons I never considered involving my older son in BSA, a decision I now regret. I assumed, incorrectly, that the BSA was similar to the GSA.

 

I can only speak except from my own limited and local experience. But I can say, from direct observation that the values held and expressed by local BSA staffers are worlds apart from those expressed and held by local GSA staffers.

 

I suspect that I'm far from being the only parent who kept his son out of the BSA, assuming it was like the GSA. And I suspect that many conservative churches are reluctant or even unwilling to sponsor BSA troops, due to this same misunderstanding.

 

GaHillBIlly

If:

1. The test swimmer is not afraid of submerging, or of the water.

2. The test swimmer can and will follow instructions.

3. For a given inhalation (air) volume, swimmer's buoyancy is a fixed physical constant.

 

Then:

1. The only way your method can INCREASE buoyancy, is to INCREASE lung expansion (air volume).

 

Been there, tried that method, sat on the bottom after.

 

I *did* sink more slowly than with other positions. I suspect that that position helps maximize lung inflation. And, thus, as a method of helping kids meet the requirements, it's a worthwhile attempt. However, it didn't help sufficiently to make me buoyant, and my swim instructor -- all those years ago -- didn't understand physics well enough to realize that if someone had negative buoyancy in fresh water with maximally inflated lungs, NOTHING is going to change that, short of adding flotation or allowing hand sculling. That instructor believed that everyone can float, and was determined to prove it over my strangled body. It was a miserable experience.

 

However, the arms back - chest arched position is (in my opinion) relatively useless, for very simple reasons. The avowed BSA rationale for teaching (and requiring) floating is to provide a self-rescue rest position.

 

Unfortunately, a Scout who needs to float for an extended period will hardly ever be in a glassy calm pool or pond. If they were, they'd be far better off to simply swim slowly to shore or pool edge. Rather, someone who must wait hours for rescue is almost certainly in open water some considerable distance from shore. The recommended position essentially guarantees that even the tiniest wave will wash over, and into, the swimmer's nose. For precisely this reason, even many experienced swimmers cannot swim backstroke in the ocean or on a lake with light chop.

 

There are ONLY three methods for keeping water out of a swimmer's nose: 1) maintain a face down position, or 2) exhale continuously through the nose (what competitive swimmers do while performing a flip turn!) or 3) wear a nose clip. None of these are an option for our Scout in need of rescue.

 

I accept the prudence of regulatory compliance in general, and of using this method to improve kid's 'pass' rate on this requirement. However, I suspect the requirement is pretty useless, in real emergencies.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

To respond to a variety of remarks:

 

+ As far as being welcome, thanks.

 

+ I had not read the conditions for the alternate requirements; I don't know if I'd overlooked them or never seen them. I should have checked. It would seem that obesity would not be a covered condition.

 

+ The destination would be NOT Fort Benning, but Camp Merrill.

-- The camp is a one week BOY SCOUT high adventure camp, not a Ranger camp, even though Ranger instructors lead parts of it, and even though it is based at Camp Merrill.

-- Also, it's not an SM decision, it's a only a possibility . . . BUT

-- My own feeling is that it's possibility that could give some of the kids a goal to work toward, and that they NEED a goal like that. If they choose a different ACTUAL destination 2 years from now, such as Philmont or whatever, that's fine.

-- This is a NEW troop with ZERO experienced youth leaders. The new SPL is a 13 year old Tenderfoot with no prior leadership experience. Some older boys, who joined the troop when it was first formed 9 months ago, are now inactive. My son, new to Scouting, is the only other Tenderfoot. The rest of the boys are 10 or 11 years old, fresh up from Cub Scouts. It's my understanding that it is normal for such a troop to have greater direction by the SM, than would a mature troop, with functioning and experienced boys in the the SPL, Guide, and PL positions.

 

+ Currently a number of the kids can NOT get through "the fitness requirements for Tenderfoot and for 2d/1st Class swimming", without some accomodation and help. I'm just trying to figure out how to help make that happen, and was seeking advice toward that end. The only other option is simply to accept that they'll drop out in a year or so.

 

+ My concern it not to make it easy on the boys but to find a ladder that they can, and will, climb. Most adults find it extremely difficult to shed 75+ lbs. I don't understand why anyone would think that it's easier for a 12 year old boy, who doesn't control the menu at home, and whose parents are also overweight.

 

+ The LAST thing I want to to create another easy-up troop filled with boys with lots of rank and few actual skills. The SM is committed to building a boy led troop, with honestly achieved ranks and MBs. But he's just made the move from Cub Scouts himself. So pretty much everyone in the troop is on the steep part of the learning curve.

 

+ There are two boys in the troop for whom backpacking is a current possibility, my son and the new SPL. The former SPL is recovering from a variety of ailments, including recent gall bladder surgery. ALL the rest are too small, too heavy or both. Backpacking will only become an option for most of these boys only AFTER they've experienced significant fitness improvement.

 

+ And before some one asks, I should say that, as of a few weeks ago, my wife and I are the only registered MB counselors for the troop, and that I've been asked to be an ASM, focusing on training. So I don't think I'm stepping out of line by looking for answers to these questions.

 

GaHillBilly

Hi All;

 

In replies to my previous post, it was pointed out that fit and thin Boy Scouts may not be so common. My experience is too limited to let me confirm that, but it is true that over 1/2 the boys in my son's troop are over weight, and one is quite obese.

 

This troop is only a year old, but already several of the boys are ducking some trips and activities because of their fitness level. The SM and ASM don't seem too concerned, but it's not hard to see where that path leads for these boys. The SM is already considering taking the troop to the adventure camp sponsored by the 5th Ranger Training Battalion 2 years from now. If some of the boys are going to be ready, it will probably take two years to get them ready.

 

Has anyone seen an effective effort to improve fitness in a group of seriously unfit boys? What did it involve?

 

Also, has the fitness modification requirement ever been invoked for boys that are simply too overweight to do a single push-up or pull-up? The SM is reluctant, but my thinking is that it's better to get them started, and work from there, than to put up a wall that shuts them out at the starting line.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

OK, I hadn't thought about it, but over the past 20 years, most of the kids and teens I've seen in the water have probably been a-typically fit. So I guess I can buy the idea that the problem is less common than I might have imagined.

 

I don't yet have enough experience with Scouts generally to have any idea where the lean/fat average is among Scouts, but it is true that a number of boys in my son's troop are either obese, or approaching it. (See the related post.)

 

GaHillBilly

Hi All;

 

I'd appreciate informed comments on one aspect of the BSA Swimmer test, specifically, the bit that goes "after completing the swim, rest by floating".

 

This element is interpreted by these comments (http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/gss02.html): "This critically important part of the test evaluates the swimmer's ability to maintain himself in the water indefinitely even though exhausted or otherwise unable to continue swimming. Treading water or swimming in place will further tire the swimmer and therefore is unacceptable. The duration of the float test is not significant, except that it must be long enough for the test administrator to determine that the swimmer is resting and likely could continue to do so for a prolonged period. Drownproofing may be sufficient if clearly restful, but it is not preferred. If the test is completed except for the floating requirement, the swimmer may be retested on the floating only (after instruction) provided that the test administrator is confident that the swimmer can initiate the float when exhausted."

 

This is an issue for me, since I'm going to be running a sort of a combination Scout swim test and clinic in about a month, and would appreciate learning how others in Scouting have dealt with this requirement. In general, the test is fine. The problem, of course, is that many fit swimmers cannot pass floating portion of the test, at least in fresh water*

 

My son and I are new to Scouting (9 months), but not to swimming. I'm an ARC Lifeguard Instructor, a PADI Scuba diver, an NSPF Certified Pool Operator Instructor, etc. My wife is also an ARC lifeguard, and worked until recently as a certified (AEA) water aerobics instructor. We both have been fitness swimmers for years. My older son is a former USS distance swimmer, with AAA+ times in the 400 IM, and the 1000 and 1650 Free. In college now, he is an ARC lifeguard, but works as a swim instructor under a very successful USS coach, and trains as a Masters open water swimmer. This past summer he was the assistant aquatics director in a well known regional sports camp. My younger son (the Scout) already has his Mile Swim (27 minutes), but has not yet officially passed the Swimmer test. As a family, we have a comparatively strong swimming background, and we have discussed the BSA swimming requirements at some length.

 

This is not a new problem to me -- I've saw it first when a swim instructor at a camp nearly drowned me 40 years ago, trying to make me float! Fortunately for us both, he finally gave up and passed me anyhow. At that time, with fully inflated lungs, I could stay at the surface, but I could not float prone, no matter what instructions he gave me. Later, after I took up rock climbing, and dropped body fat while adding muscle, I became non-buoyant in fresh water, no matter how fully inflated my lungs were. Now, at 53 I can float, but only because I'm fat. Recently, due to increasing fitness and decreasing weight, I've found my buoyancy diminishing again.

 

My 20 year old can currently float with eyes and nose out of the water ONLY by hyper-inflating his lungs, and then hanging motionless with his head tilted back. In order to maintain his float, he can exhale no more than 50%, and then must very quickly re-inflate his lungs. This maneuver obviously requires a high degree of coordination, and is workable only for a skilled and relaxed individual. It is also obviously useless as a resting position, except in totally calm water. There is absolutely nothing he can do that will result in a prone float with his legs horizontal.

 

My 12 year old (the Scout) is only in the early stages of puberty, and so does not yet have the musculature typical of highly fit older swimmers. As a result, he has slightly more buoyancy than his older brother. But, due to less coordination, he has difficulty floating at all. We'll work on it, and he'll learn to exhale partially, and then re-inflate very quickly, and he'll be able to do an eyes and nose float. But that's all: he already has the heavy thigh muscles of a swimmer, and his legs sink rapidly.

 

The reality is neither of them could float unassisted in fresh water if exhausted. The coordination required to do the extremely quick exhale/inhale is not practical if truly exhausted. 'Drownproofing' is not really a option either, since for both of them, as is the case with other low body fat muscular males, their lungs must maintain more than 50% inflation in order to achieve even neutral buoyancy in fresh water.

 

What many swim instructors who lack a true swimming background do not realize is that highly trained swimmers can rest more easily -- even if exhausted -- with a slow freestyle crawl, by treading water easily, or by laying back and sculling gently than they can by floating. If I asked my 12 year old to tread water for an hour, his only difficulty would be boredom. But if required to 'float' for an hour, he'd drown.

 

Several of the youth in my son's troop are pudgy enough so that I expect no difficult with floating, unless they panic. However, there are a couple who are swimmers, and can pass all the other requirements, but are thin enough so that they may have great difficulty floating.

 

I'd like to know how other deal with this requirement, expecially given the obviously incorrect embedded assumption that 'everyone' can learn to float.

 

Sincerely,

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

* Buoyancy is much less an issue in salt water. I don't know if there are individuals who cannot float in salt water. However I do know that I could float in the ocean throughout my life, even when I was at my maximal musculature and minimal body fat.