GaHillBilly

Actually, that title is a bit misleading, but only a tiny bit.

I cannot prove that Scouter.com is DOING the spamming; only that they provided the email addresses to the spammers.

How could I possibly prove that?

By using a totally unique email address that has ONLY been given to Scouter.com, and never used or published any other way. The address is sufficiently unique so that there is NO chance of a spammer randomly, or accidentally stumbling across it. There's a little more to it than that, but the bottom line is . . . Scouter.com's sysadmins are feeding spam into my inbox, and probably into you yours as well.

And, it's not just me, either. McAfee's SiteAdvisor service flags Scouter.com as a suspect domain, due to the results of their automated (and anonymous) testing:

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/scouter.com

I'd like to know why!

After all, a "Scout is trustworthy" and spamming is not.

GaHillBilly

I started investigating Scouting, as an opportunity for my (then) 11 year old son two years ago. We joined a troop about 20 months ago. Since then, I have learned a lot about Scouts and Scouting -- as it is in the literature AND as it is in practice.

I've been grateful for this forum, for it has given me a place to ask questions I dared not ask locally, and a place to vent, when the pressure got to be too much. I've mostly tried to avoid being specific about local details, to avoid raising a ruckus or hurting feelings. But, I'm getting beyond that now.

I'm again in the middle of a mess, largely due to having made the mistake of serving on the Star BOR of our SPL. (I'd had sense enough to stay far, far away from the Eagle BOR.) But, our SPL proceeded to lie to us to excuse his lack of basic Scout skills, and I compounded my first mistake of serving on the BOR, with a second huge mistake: I thought, and acted as if lying to a BOR was a serious issue. This BOR took place only three weeks after I found him, along with both PLs, arrested informally by a State Park ranger for having violated park curfew, and being loud and boisterous at midnight in the middle of a campground crowded with non-Scouts.

I'd thought I was going to be able to help things for some of the boys by using the 'patrol method' and patrol camping to do an end run around a group of skill-less (all of them) and character-less (half of them) older boys. But, the ASM 'step-father' (who is dating the mother of the SPL, having parted with the mother of the former SPL) was entirely unwilling to have anything take place which would shrink the group of boys his sort-of step-son had to boss around at a troop camp.

The younger boys have learned that Eagle candidates can't tie square knots and are afraid to camp in the dark without one of their parents nearby. They've learned that their SPL can't whip a rope properly 10 minutes after a training session in which ALL of the younger boys learned to do so . . . because the SPL can't be bothered to pay attention! They seen that the new boys can use a compass and map better than the experienced and older former SPL (who is actually a generally good example of moral character, but who is unfortunately rather indolent, unfit and slow to acquire physical skills). They've helped our Eagle candidate on his one-day-wonder 'trail repair' project, and watched the work and the planning and the arrangements be made by his mother and father. And, then they've hiked on those trails, and tripped over the uselessly placed run-off guides and gotten mired in the incorrectly selected fill.

I've seen boys with Swimming MBs who can't swim, boys with Canoeing MBs who can't hold a paddle, boys with Lifesaving MBs who can't put their head underwater . . . and watched younger boys learn that a Merit Badge is just a patch you get for paying up and showing up, just like a Camporee patch.

There've been some benefits:

+ I have greatly increased my knowledge of knots, botany, & land navigation

+ My son has greatly increased his knowledge of knots, first aid, botany, camping & land navigation.

+ I've camped more, including camping more with just my family.

+ I've begun to think about, acknowledge, and work on flaws in my own character and behavior, as a result of considering the Scout Law.

But, the frustrations have been enormous, as I've chased the pot of gold at rainbow's end:

- I've struggled, often fruitlessly, to understand a program that is contradictory in its goals and methods.

- I've come to understand that Scouting is a program of enormous promise and vision, but little in the way of important results, largely because it is very hard and demands great skill and wisdom and countless hours on the part of key troop leaders.

- I've experienced, and continue to experience, enormous frustration with a program in which common and widely accepted practices directly contradict the Scout Law. In particular, advancement and merit badges requirements are 'processed' in ways which directly contradict every Scout's pledge to be "trustworthy".

- I've watched troops and boys be denied the "outing" experiences fundamental to Scouting, because the leaders were too fat, too frail, too unfit, too unskilled, too fearful or too disinterested to provide those experiences.

- I've watched younger boys' needs and concerns sacrificed to older boys' desire to be bosses.

- I've watched younger boys' opportunities restricted or eliminated, in order to cater to older boys' fears and lack of skills.

- I've watched "methods" -- particularly "advancement" and the pursuit of the Eagle 'patch' -- become the real goals, and replace the original goals of Scouting.

- I've watched a mockery made of one of Scoutings' most central ideas, that of older boys leading younger boys by good example, when older boys who set bad or even horrible examples are elevated in rank and position, rather than censured or disciplined.

- I've watched younger boys learn that "trustworthy" means "cheating only in accepted ways"; that "brave" means "admitting, when you have to, that your fears dominate your decisions"; that "obedient" means "not getting caught disobeying".

- I've watched the phrase "boy-led" become a mystical mantra, used to justify the useless or destructive results of giving real leadership to untrained and undisciplined older boys, who remain untrained and undisciplined because the leaders do not themselves have the time or skills to train and discipline them.

- I've watched boys mis-taught plant ID and animal ID and navigation and knots, by leaders who hadn't put forth the effort (and it takes a lot!) to learn those skills first. About 75% of the instruction my son has received that has been factually correct, came from me.

We homeschool, and I've nearly concluded that we should simply re-register my son as a Lone Scout. All the benefits above are available via Lone Scout. There are a half dozen younger boys I won't be able to help, but I've had to recognize that I can't really help them now, but must instead watch them be consumed as fuel for the altar of the older boys' experience 'boy-leadership'. As I consider the huge negatives listed above, I can't see any reason to stay, except for a somewhat dogged tendency to refuse to admit failure.

I'm going to back away and cool down for a week or so, and discuss it carefully with my son, but with gas at $4/gal and going up, and no troops that are better within 30 miles, I can't see that there's any other option.

GaHillBilly

Comments, based on my own local observations:

1. The comments about email & texting are dead on, at least with my Scouts. But, they don't have all have text, for various reasons, but commonly $$$. And, they don't listen to voice mail. Texting isn't very useful even with those that have it, because those that do text tend to relate to it in a 'fire & forget' mode aka "OMG tisc!" or "OMG tisl". My own son uses his email only for outgoing email and replies, mostly from teachers. So, I've got an education process to work through in teaching the new PL *and* his patrol to contact each other.

2. It doesn't occur to the Scouts I work with, that they can take the initiative, except in structured opportunities, like the godforsaken MBCs. Again, I got to BOTH make sure other, better, opportunities are accessible and that the Scouts know about them.

So . . . I think the place to begin work on communication is intra-troop, rather than extra-troop. PL's and others have rank based obligatory communication duties that (apparently) often go by the wayside, because the adults don't (1) establish the framework, (2) demo the skills, (3) TEACH the skills *effectively*, (4) expect follow through.

GaHillBilly

Latest rant: I'm sick of encountering adults who think that, if they *think* they've said it that they've taught it. We need Scouters under the same sort of expectation that primary teachers are: "If they didn't learn it, then the presumption is that you didn't teach it EFFECTIVELY!"

In many cases, the adults haven't even SAID it clearly, much less TAUGHT it.

I believe that if you check (Google's your friend) you'll find that FrontPage licenses are still available. Microsoft's latest web tool product offering is useless (IMHO) to non-pros, and probably even to them. I have an Action Pak license (10 licenses of all the software MS makes) and installed it (can't remember if it was Sharepoint or Expression Web, and I'm not gonna go dig out the CD!) briefly, and then spent 5x as long get it all eradicated from my system. Yuck, and double yuck!

Other options include Linux tools, such as Bluefish and Quanta, both of which are preferably to the morbidly obese MS offering. On Windows, Dreamweaver is standard, but expensive and complex. I haven't used it regularly since version 4, which was somewhat buggy and slow. I like Frontpage 2003 much better!

Without knowing your team's skill level and hosting arrangement, I can't make any definite recommendations. But, I'd guess your best bet is to scare up some Frontpage 2003 licenses.

GaHillBilly(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

Packsaddle, that was my wedding photo!

My beard and hair are shorter (and thinner) now.

GaHillBilly(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

Goldwinger, if you know knots, and restrict yourself to that . . . I think that's great.

The problem is Scouting is about the outdoors. B-P's reasons are ones I can't accept: I don't worship nature; I don't believe in the 'church of the outdoors'; I'm not a Wiccan / nature worshiper; and I certainly don't accept the 19th C ideas about the sublimity of nature*. The fact is, I don't know *why* the outdoors matter so much. I have my suspicions and theories, but I don't *know*.

But, it's still there.

I also don't think nature is just a place for an ordeal. I don't think the Pioneering MB should be primarily about survival; I don't think the 20 mile Hiking MB is supposed to be, first of all, HARD! And, I don't think the Insect Study MB should be simply about laboring methodically at a difficult bit of natural history.

I know, from a variety of experiences, that interest in the particularities of nature -- the orange-wooded and weird fruited osage orange; the buzzing, swarming ruby-throated hummingbirds just inches from your face; the brilliant colors of a newly shed corn snake; the intelligent, almost human face of a jumping spider or the horrible fascination of a Shelob-bodied orb weaver consuming prey; the sight of a newborn fawn hiding helplessly in the grass -- these experiences, if we give them to young boys, are remembered for a lifetime.

So, GW, if a Scout leader doesn't love and know nature, in its particularities, he cannot give Scouts these experiences. I can't help but feel that a living room troop -- all visits to features, amusements, football games and other ticketed venues -- isn't a *real* Scout troop, any more than a troop that accepts bogus rank advancement and and MBs isn't a real troop.

If what you know is knots, I'm glad you stick to that. But, I'm not sure it's enough; I think you and every Scout leader needs to know more.

Unfortunately, the amount of knowledge needed to be an effective and prepared teacher of the skills through First Class is rather daunting. B-P came prepared, by his past history and experience. Some other leaders are similarly prepared. But most are not.

For myself, I'm trying to think how to make the unique local particularities of nature more accessible, and easier to learn, for local leaders so they can *really* teach the boys something about nature "the right way"!

And, in contrast to you, I think it IS a "big deal".

GaHillBilly

* Take a look at some paintings from the 'Hudson River School' if you want to see what I mean:

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/hudsonriver.html(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

Goldwinger, I can only hope you never work on outdoor skills with any Scouts. Somehow, I feel the common B-P quote (there's a right way and a wrong way to tie a know, and a Scout should know the right way!) is pertinent here!

Eagletrek, the problem that it's more complicated than you suggest. To start with, the bur oak -- a member of the white oak group -- is not common in my area (N. Ga) so it would not be a good choice for a list of plants Scoutmasters could ID in my area. But, to suggest that one can ID the "red oak" sort of misses the point, because 'red oaks' are a group that includes over 25 species

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Quercus_species#Section_Lobatae]

. . . and at least 4 that are called "red oaks" by common name.

[http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch (search by 'Common name' for "red oak"]

So, if you were to teach plant ID here, you'd have to look long and hard to find a bur oak. But red oaks are still a problem, at least for me. There are at least 6 red oaks common in this area:

+ Black oak Quercus velutina

+ Northern red oak Quercus rubra

+ Pin oak Quercus palustris

+ Scarlet oakQuercus coccinea

+ Southern red oak Quercus falcata

+ Turkey oak Quercus laevis

What simple process or key structure would you suggest, to enable a botanically untrained Scoutmaster -- or even less trained camp counselor -- to not only distinguish these correctly, but to teach 11 - 13 year old Scouts to do so?

Here's one of the better simple keys:

http://www.arborday.org/trees/whattree/WhatTree.cfm?ItemID=E6A

But, if you try to run out the 4 oaks I collected yesterday . . . the ID depends on acorns, none of which are currently available nor even common on any of the oaks in the park this year!

I can quickly teach a half-way observant Scout to recognize a flowering dogwood or a hackberry by bark and form, even in winter. But, how ya gonna do that with those six red oaks? What's likely to happen instead is that your erstwhile Scouting botanist is likely to teach his Scouts to ID whatever sharp lobed, bristle-tipped oak is common in his area as a "red oak". If he's lucky, he'll even be half-right! But it will only be luck.

GaHillBilly

Whew! I don't agree with Packsaddle on lots of things, but this is one where I'm in complete agreement: reliable species identification is often very hard, and often got wrong.

The sarcastic response offered by uz2bnowl,

"for my iggggnoorince I never earned the merit badge or I may have known that. My low brow view is that there are good bugs and bad bugs.

Pack, how do you bear to share the planet with us cretins?"

is, I'm afraid all too typical. My son was told to 'shut up and learn', after pointing out that a stand of river cane (probably Arundinaria gigantea) was just that, and not "sugar cane" as the adult leader had told them. He'd earlier pointed out that Chinese privet was not, in fact, "boxwood" as they'd been taught. He shut up, and stayed quiet through all the mis-identifications that followed, including sweet gum as a maple!

The problem is not confined to the merit badges. I would be willing to bet big money that, out of 100 Scouters who've taught the '10 native plant' identifications, less than 5 of them have done so correctly. Few amateur naturalists can distinguish oak, pine, or hickory species at a glance. Sparrows, hawks, warblers and other birds offer the same problem. And, it appears that in the case of salamanders, DNA testing may be needed to verify species!

But, it's worse than that: I've seen Scouters confuse lizards and salamanders, call privet hedge native, and ID tracks from 5' away as "raccoon", even though skunks, possums, muskrats, beaver, and mink were all known to be present in the area! But, all this sharing oftheir ignorance -- and then being offended when a question is raised -- seriously shortchanges the Scouts!

In my own area I'm working on a list, with photos, of easy-to-identify plant species for local Scouters to use. In my area, the list includes

+ flowering dogwood Cornus florida (bark, berries, flowers, form)

+ willow oak Quercus phellos (leaves)

+ eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana (foliage, form, bark)

+ hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana (habitat, trunk form, bark)

+ sycamore Platanus occidentali (bark)

+ hackberry Celtis occidentalis bark

+ tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera (leaves, flowers)

+ shagbark hickory Carya ovata) (bark, form)

+ river cane! Arundinaria gigantea (form, leaves, sheaths, habitat)

+ red bud Cercis canadensis (leaves, flowers, form)

+ box elder Acer negundo (leaves, bark, form, sometimes seeds)

+ poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans (leaves, vine form, ground form, berries)

+ poison oak Toxicodendron pubescens (leaves, habitat, bush form, berries)

+ virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia (leaves, vine form)

+ winged elm Ulmus alata (excrescences on twigs & small branches)

+ sweet gum Liquidambar styraciflua (leaves, fruit balls)

For other oaks, beeches, hickories, elms, & pines, I'm simply teaching "oak", "beech", "hickory", etc.

I wonder is this is not an appropriate service that should be offered in all areas of the country?

GaHillBilly

B4 I start, I should say I respect Beavuh's advice on this Forum probably more than anyone else's here

But . . .

Beavuh wrote "It takes honor and character to stand up to your own party. To tell your friends "No!" and stand on principle, eh?"

Frankly, I'm not sure Scouter's have a leg to stand on, when it comes to talking about OTHER groups who aren't honest and who don't stand up to their friends! Almost from the beginning of my son's and my entry into Scouting, we've been dismayed by the bogus ranks and bogus MBs. I've mentioned before the Star Scout w/ Canoeing MB who held a paddle like a broom, and who was afraid to go down a Class II river with the rest of the troop, and the Life Scout and Eagle candidate who could not tie either a square knot or two half hitches.

My own son has a blue card for First Aid, with accompanying completion sheet showing everything except CPR checked off . . . even though the idea of making a FA kit for your family was never even mentioned.

If I seem like I'm angry and frustrated, well it's because I am! And I think I have good reason.

This weekend, I was in the safety boat that presided over a potentially fatal accident, caused by Scouts who would rather argue among one another than follow safety instructions. One of the Scouts imperiled by this accident was put into harms way precisely because neither his personal fitness (checked off in Tfoot not long ago) nor his swimming ability (checked off this summer at camp, I was assured!) were what I was assured they were.

Beavuh, if you want to talk about people speaking the truth to their friends, I think you've got some real opportunity, RIGHT HERE!

Bogus ranks and bogus MBs are a festering pus-filled ulcer on Scouting's integrity and trustworthiness. How can a Scout, or Scouter, say the Scout law, pledging to be trustworthy and then play these dishonest games with skills and ranks?

If BSA and Scouters want to re-write the ranks and badges to remove the requirement that a Scout be able to tie a square knot, and replace it with a "Scout must be able to recognize a labeled picture of a square knot" or "a Scout must be able to hold two pieces of rope while his instructor joins them with something like a square knot (or else a granny knot)" or "a Scout must be able to swim 75 + 25 yds, unless it scares him or he finds it hard, in which case dog paddling a few feet in the shallow end will suffice", well then that's BSA's organizational right.

But, let's be "trustworthy" and call a spade a spade!

For myself, it means I will never again trust a critical Scouting skill certification I have not personally verified, unless I have watched and have absolute trust in the training and certification work of the Scouter confirming those skills to me.

GaHillBilly

Hey, isn't this what Trevorum, Packsaddle and some others were looking for?

If so, these guys have saved them a bunch of trouble. Now, they don't have to try to change BSA into the GSA for Boys: they can just join "Adventure Scouts", the "only fully nondiscriminatory Scout Programs in the United States"!

But hey, what I really liked was their little appendix to their "Scout Code". They follow it with the note that "These are not just nice-sounding words. They have meaning."

They must have read my mind! Imagine, I was thinking just exactly those things, that their words 'have no meaning', and were only 'nice-sounding'. But now, thanks to their helpful note, I won't have to think that anymore!

Of course, I don't know what meaning their words have and they can't say because, my goodness, if they did they'd be discriminating against something or someone -- probably me!

GaHillBilly

OGE, on the Forums where I've acted as a moderator, one of the requirements has always been that the moderators read posts CAREFULLY, before moderating them.

Perhaps, that's not a requirement here. Or if it is, perhaps that memo failed to reach YOUR desk?

My statements were about how NPR -- NOT the Democrats -- were twisting the news, apparently to serve their agenda. I did not, and would not, equate the Democrats and NPR. NPR, in my observation, is far, far left of average Democrats. Obama may also be to the left of average Democrats, but even he's not that far.

Also my point was not about politics, per se, but about how horribly despotic regimes in recent history have depended on an acceptance of such propagandized news as a means of gaining support. Certainly, I could have referred to other regimes, such as Stalin's and Mao's, who behaved in the same way. But, generally people are far more familiar with the Nazis, than with the Stalinists or Maoists.

This point was, I believe, warranted. And if I wish to make it heard, I have to use vocabulary and images generally familiar. Nazism is such an image. The fact that it is familiar is partly due to that extra-historical iconic status it has acquired. But, one has to work with the language that exists, not the one that might be wished for.

It's not as if I only object when those to the left of me politically, behave this way. I could have spoken of similar distortions that exist in my own church denomination, and have done just that locally . . . but it's far to esoteric for this forum. More familiarly, I have -- check my past posts -- commented on my local council's complicity in similar dishonesty, with respect to MB and Eagle mills. But I don't yet know that whether this is as bad a problem elsewhere as it is in my council, so I tried to avoid assuming that in comments that refer to Scouting nationally.

Please before you react next time, take the time and make the effort to read posts CAREFULLY first. I know from my own experience what a pain doing so can be. But, it's part of the job.

GaHillBilly

OGE wrote earlier, "Funny, I thought it read, "Thou shalt not kill"

Unfortunately, it was so translated in King James translation, and repeated in many subsequent English translations. But, as Rooster7 noted, it was never what was meant, and probably has always been a poor translation. The meaning of the original (and this has not, so far as I know, ever been disputed by scholars) was, "Thou shalt not kill WRONGLY", or more succinctly, "You shall not murder".

OGE also questioned, "But it does give one pause to wonder what other biblical 'truths' our society honors that are mis-translated."

The problem is not so much mis-translation, as it is ignorance of the Bible, which isolates all such quotes from their context. In earlier times, at least in this country, even people who didn't read were weekly subjected to -- and expected to remember -- long sermons and long Scripture readings. For many, many people, Bible readings were a regular part of their family gatherings. For such people, and others familiar with the Old Testament, it would have never occurred to them that "Thou shalt not kill" meant anything other than "Thou shalt not murder", though not all could have broken from the familiar and restated it that way.

In fact, if you examine, all the 6 commands, concerning men's behavior toward men are of this kind:

5. Give parents the respect you owe them.

6. Do not take lives which are not forfeit to you.

7. Do not have sex with any to whom you are not properly bound.

8. Do not take property which is not yours.

9. Do not deny the truth to those due it. (ie, do not testify falsely, NOT, do not lie!)

10. Do not set your heart on anything which is not yours, but which belongs to another.

That this is the way to understand the commands is made clear by all the surrounding 'case law' in the Torah. The case (or example) law answers the question, 'How does the commandment apply, just HERE?'.

So, OGE, you are correct that that is what was written. But, you are incorrect to think that that statement -- as it stands along in English -- was EVER what was meant!

Leading with his lip, Packsaddle wrote, "Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country who received far better treatment for his crime than he deserved. I am a Southerner, born and raised."

Packsaddle, that statement alone, phrased as it was, offers more than enough reason to question your 'loyalty'.

Be that as it may, it's also just dumb. The argument is not worth reproducing here, mostly because you wouldn't listen. But the simple fact is that none of Lee's opponents (including many who were former classmates at West Point) considered him a traitor. And they were in a far, far better position to judge than you.

Packsaddle, when you think of your Grandmother's paintings, you draw the wrong lesson. You imagine that she was self-decieved . . . and that you are not. And thus, it is you who are deluded.

The fact that Lee knew, as did many on both sides of that War, is that ALL men deceive themselves.

scoutingagain wrote, "Pack, Can't help but think you have an interesting social circle down there in Georgia."

Actually, SA, based on Pack's statements I'm guessing that he's actually an emigre living in one of the Yankee enclaves, like Atlanta or Athens, which are found in isolated parts of Georgia. Those of us who are true Southerners are very greatful for I-285, which marks off the boundaries so clearly. ;-)

jr56 wrote, "All you people have way too much time on your hands."

Maybe.

I've certainly wasted time in this Forum section.

But this particular thread addresses an issue more often ignored than not: what does the Scout Law actually mean? What does it mean to be "morally straight"? Or . . . "trustworthy, loyal (to what?), helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient (to whom?), cheerful (when, and on what grounds?), thrifty (like Rockefeller or like George Mueller?), brave, clean, reverent (I won't even start!)"

BP is famously reported to have said 'Scouting is a game with a purpose'. And, it's fairly clear that his purpose was to make better citizens for the British Empire.

But what is ours?

Again, it's fairly clear that many of the originators of BSA hoped to create better American citizens. But "for God and country" is no longer a cry that even American Christians can make without great reservation.

BP believed in a fuzzy nature-religion, not entirely unlike the fuzzy thinking and ethics of modern environmentalists. But his nature-ethics were postive and optimistic, where modern environmentalism is, at its heart, both anarchistic and anti-human.

Members of the LDS know what role Scouting plays for them, but I'm not sure if any other class of CO's do. Certainly many traditional CO's, like the United Methodist Church, are now led by clergy or other other professionals committed to values at odds with Scouting. Even Scouting itself suffers from what is apparently a national plague of MB and Eagle mills, which teach that "trustworthy" really is all about appearance and not about substance.

The question of how the the purpose and values of Scouting should be defined and followed is I've been thinking about, rather hard lately. I find it all together remarkable that B-P created a structure that allows a CO to define, very substantially, the meaning of those values. But, I'm beginning to think that it is only the LDS that have done so. For the rest of us, it seems to me that Scouting may well be a hollow man, lacking heart and soul.

I wonder if it's a question any others among you have pondered?

If so, what conclusions have you reached?

GaHillBilly

Like so many skilled politicians she didn't exactly lie, just left out a few pesky details.

Or like many local Scouters, when they say, 'Sure, he passed the rank requirements!", not that he can tie a square knot, or actually apply first aid, but he PASSED!

Shoot, lets' check and see if she gained THAT skill in Scouts. Maybe in Alaska, they let hard-core girls into Boy Scouts, and then teach them Scout skills. God knows that fudging the facts is ONE skill that is constantly and successfully taught in this council.

. . . from a hillbilly, who's feeling rather cynical this morning, after banging his head -- HARD -- on local Scouting political reality.

GaHillBilly

Oooh . . . just found this one:

"He added that McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate was "absolutely wonderful for the state of Alaska."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/palin.trooper/index.html

WHO added?? That would be Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law, who's at the center of "Trooper-gate". Gee, with enemies like that, Trooper-gate is clearly a serious threat to Palin!

So . . . packsaddle, are ya gonna vote for Palin/McCain now?

GaHillBilly

Back to the originally scheduled question . . .

Sarah Palin did NOT advocate teaching creationism in the classroom. Instead, what she said was

I dont think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesnt have to be part of the curriculum, Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/

Several other concerns voiced on this Forum also are apparent frauds, perpetrated by various Democratic 'sympathizers', like the professional liars at the Daily Kos.

So Packsaddle, now that your concern about Sarah Palin has been resolved, are you going to vote for her?? Or was all that 'concern', just a red herring?

GaHillBilly

I wasn't really criticizing -- I did think it odd, but as I noted, nothing wrong.

For the record, I think scouter.com & usscouts.org are generally more useful than scouting.org.

Actually, as I've noted the degree to which BSA is marketing for $$$, not integrity in the shops, Boys' Life and so on, I've found myself wondering, "What would be missed if BSA national closed up, but placed all their copyrights under Creative Commons?", including uniform design. So far, I've thought of a few things that would be missed, but many more that would not.

A thread for another time, perhaps.

GaHillBilly

Pixiewife, my point was NOT to argue that Sarah Palin did (or did not) support such earmarks. I don't trust left wing dominated media outlets such as NPR on such topics, that that only means I'm skeptical, not that I've concluded that NPR's headline was wrong.

Politicians as a class have -- ever since Rome -- tried to use tax funds to buy votes. This is not a right wing or left wing activity, it is simply and unfortunately a politician type activity.

But my point was that NPR was falling all over themselves to avoid highlighting a speech that was enormously successful. IF NPR's headline was / is true, it's proper place was in paragraph 3 or 4 or where ever the Bridge to Nowhere was discussed and NOT as the lead headline.

Kraut-60, maybe you can answer a question I've begun to wonder about: who ARE the moderators?

I've participated in many forums before, but never on a forum where the moderators were apparently a secret class. This is a privately forum, apparently owned by a "Terry Howerton" of the Chicago area, whoever that is. And since I run to toward the constitutionally conservative side of things, I don't question his right to have a secret group of moderators. But, it's still an oddity on the Internet.

GaHillBilly

GaHillBilly

You wrote, "You know, I thought I made it clear about Nazi references. To make Nazi references when people in no way are approaching the horror the absolute horror of the Holocaust is reprehensible and repugnant."

OGE, I don't know what you made clear -- somehow that memo never arrived on MY desk.

I realize that the cultural iconic force possessed by the Holocaust, that makes it familiar enough for me to use illustratively in an general audience, is related to the mythology of the Holocaust as "absolute horror". But while my reference to Nazi movement as acquiring social acceptability through repeated half truths and welcomed lies is based on a solid historical foundation, your reference to the Holocaust as "absolute horror" and thus unique and unparalleled in recent human history is based on historical ignorance and naivite.

It's not that choices, events, and actions that comprise the Holocaust were not enormously evil: they were in fact both evil and horrifying.

Rather, the falsehood you have embraced is that they were unique!

This falsehood -- regarding the uniqueness of the Holocaust -- is directly related to the point I was trying make. Little public lies, widely repeated and accepted and then incremented, are the foundation on which horrors like the Holocaust are constructed. But, unlike the fiction which you have chosen to embrace: namely, the idea that the Holocaust was a UNIQUE event, and thus something utterly unlike the things any of us would do, the truth is that people just like us have done, and did do, just such things.

The 20th century was not introduced to deliberate genocide by the Germans in the 1930's and 40's, but by the Turks, around 1915, when they largely exterminated the Armenian Christians, murdering over a million of them. If your criteria is use of live prisoners for medical experimentation, I believe the Japanese did so on a far larger scale. Nor was the Holocaust the largest case of mass murder for political and cultural reasons. When WWII began, Stalin had ALREADY murdered more that Hitler ever did. By most counts, Mao Tse-tung killed about FOUR times as many as Hitler and Stalin killed about TWICE as many. Nor was the Holocaust a unique case of other nations standing by and doing nothing. During your generation and mine, OGE, Pol Pot killed about as many as Hitler while our nation largely did nothing. We knew far more about Pol Pot's murders while they yet continued, than most Americans did about Hitlers, and could have intervened at a fraction of the risk and cost of WWII, yet we did nothing. So, arguably we are PRECISELY the sort of people that stand by and wring their hands, while doing nothing . . . just like the majority of the Lutheran Church in Germany in 1930.

I would suggest to you that the 'politically correct' view you voiced, that the Holocaust is somehow unique in history and among men is yet another welcomed lie, precisely because it allows those embracing that myth to also embrace the falsehood that they -- that we - are not THAT kind of men.

But we are just that kind of men.

And it's precisely the toleration of the sort of convenient half-truth that NPR was engaging in that has historically been the building block of the smooth and wide road down into the kind of evil that the Germans embraced in 1930 . . . and that my father's forbears embraced in North Georgia (formerly, "Cherokee Georgia") during the 1830's, and that my mother's forbears used to justify their enslavement of other men.

This sort of welcomed lie is not even that far from the roots of the Boy Scouts. Copyrights on many of the relevant documents have expired, so many of them are available online, at least in part. Use Google to search for "Baden-Powell" and "eugenics" if you want to investigate further. While you're at it, you might wish to Google for "Hitler" and "Baden-Powell"!

Indeed, I would argue that, when we teach boys to promise to be, first of all, "trustworthy" and then put them through Merit Badge colleges that produce First Aid MB holders who can't make a sling and Swimming MB holders who can't swim and Canoeing MB holders who can't hold a paddle . . . we are teaching them to tell just such lies. And, when we make Eagle candidates who cannot tie a square knot, or orient a map with a compass, or tell how to stop severe bleeding . . . well then, we are teaching them to embrace and tolerate just the sort of convenient half-truths Hitler AND Stalin AND Mao Tse-tung AND Andrew Jackson AND so many others have built their 'evil empires' upon.

GaHillBilly

My older son, who has surprised us all (including himself) by turning out to be a whiz at things like organic chemistry and biochemistry, surprised his biochemistry professor by asking her what she thought of Michael Behe's work (he's the biochemist behind the idea of "irreducible complexity").

Like a good little post-modern scientist, she recoiled, and expressed tremendous skepticism. He then asked her if she'd read either of his books on the topic, and she sheepishly acknowledged that she had not. So, he loaned her Darwin's Black Box, and she read it.

Her observation afterwards was, "He makes an awfully strong case!"

I understand that she's agreed to read The Edge of Evolution, this semester. It will be interesting to see how she reacts to it: my son and I both think it's quite a bit stronger than his first book.

As a Christian with a long time interest in the topic, I would be the first to admit that the bulk of the argumentation I've seen in favor of creationism is seriously defective.

Unfortunately, the fact that many Creationists couldn't reason their way our of a wet paper bag, doesn't prove that they are wrong nor that believers in naturalistic reductionism are right, nor even that many of the arguments for Darwinian (or even Gouldian) evolution are much better.

GaHillBilly

PS: As a point of information, for the uninitiated, published descriptions of Behe's argumenation are NEVER (in my experience) correct. If you want to know what he says, you have to read his books. Neither evolutionists nor creationists report his work accurately. He is NOT a "Creationist" in the sense popular in my own rather fundamentalist denomination, nor in the sense used in evolutionist charactures. Rather he is a Catholic, who defines evolution as consisting of three independent core concepts:

1. Common descent (man from monkeys, birds from lizards . . . genetically speaking)

2. Natural selection as the means of by which new 'more highly adapted' species arise.

3. Random mutation as the mechanism by which the genetic variation, upon which new biological orders depend, occurs.

He accepts 'common descent', but argues that we now know enough about biochemical mechanism and genetic transmission via DNA to KNOW that neither natural selection nor random mutation can successfully explain common descent.

Gotta do this, even though it's a waste of time . . .

So, the news EVENT of the day is, "Sarah Palin delivers major speech at RNC". This would, of course, be the un-spun version of the news.

Possible spun headlines:

- "Sarah Palin's speech doesn't meet all expectations." (Certainly true, even though the implication is false )

- "Sarah Palin's speech is a home run." (Seemed to be the consensus of even Democratic talking heads this AM, so it's probably true, but a hard core Democrat might consider this spun.)

- "Sarah Palin takes on role of RNC pit bull." (You could conflate several things she said, and argue (speciously) that this is what she claimed herself.

Of course, all THOSE version remain focused on the key news event, even if they are spun versions.

So, how did NPR lead off this AM?

"Sarah Palin supported earmarks attached to the Congressional bill that remained after the "bridge to nowhere" was canceled."

Huh??

Apparently, ANY version of the actual main news story was too pro-RNC for NPR, so they headlined a statement that any legitimate news organization would have placed 4 paragraphs down, when the reporting addressed her claim to have rejected the "bridge to nowhere".

It seems to me that the only possible conclusions are that

1. NPR considers itself to be the propaganda wing of the DNC,

AND THAT

2. They are running scared enough, so that spinning the news is not enough: they have to distort it out of any recognizable resemblance to the real events.

Who knows?

It may work. During WWII, lots of Germans genuinely disbelieved reports of death camps (but, what's that smell?) in their country. And, many Russians today genuinely believe that their troops are 'liberating' Georgia. So, bogus reporting can certainly create bogus understanding, especially if you can stomp on competing messages.

Now, if they can just outlaw FoxNews . . . and those horrible right-wing radio hosts . . . Oh, yeah! and those dishonest bloggers (no, not the Daily Kos, so recently caught telling deliberate lies about Palin -- we mean the right-wing bloggers!).

GaHillBilly

Packsaddle, to vote against McCain solely because Palin has been reported to support teaching "creationism" in public schools -- a charge which may or may not turn out to be true -- is to take an rather naive and unsophisticated view of things.

First, even the President is unlikely to have much influence over what is taught or not taught in high school science classes. The VP is virtually certain to have no influence whatsoever. To reject McCain on this issue suggests to me that you were already looking for a PC excuse for doing so.

Second, all press reports on this topic, from all sides of the issue, are virtually certain to have one characteristic in common: they will be seriously inaccurate and they will be very biased. To make a judgment so early, on so peripheral an issue, with so little evidentiary doesn't speak well of your own analytic capabilities.

Third, it's fairly well documented that high school science education is a more often a bust than not, no matter what is taught or who teaches it. Apparently, it is well documented that taking high school chemistry or physics is negatively correlated with success in college chemistry or physics. The only subject consistently found to be positively correlated with success in college science is . . . math and more math! (Reading, 'riting, & 'rithmetic) (Here's one example: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/02/17-ap.html )

If you teach science, I'm sure you are already aware of those studies. I understand you may not LIKE the conclusion those studies reach -- I gather most high school science teachers don't -- but, if you apply logic to the data, then it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it may not matter much, what you teach in high school about the origin of life.

And, if you focus on what works, which is teaching math, well I'm sure you realize that creationists and atheists teach calculus pretty much identically!

However, it may not matter much. I just finished watching Palin's speech. If she does half as well with future challenges, as she did with that, she and McCain may not need your vote!

GaHillBilly

I think it depends on how fundamental a method you consider "outdoors" to be. I know this has been (and is) an issue in our troop. In fact, paint ball has recently become an issue because an older Scout, who doesn't really like camping or hiking or swimming or canoeing or climbing or biking or . . .

. . . does like paint ball.

If "Scouting is 3/4 outing", well then "Sc" isn't about enough to bother with.

While I don't buy into B-P's 'religion of nature', I do think that there is something fundamental about actually experiencing nature, in the sense of nights and bugs and dust and coyote howls and rocks and creeks and trees and owls and bats and so on, as opposed to READING about environmentalism and global warming and putting a green sticker on the bumper.

B-P said Scouting without the patrol method was not Scouting at all. But I suspect it never occurred to him that anyone would try to do stuff without a real experience of the outdoors and call it, "Scouting".

But, then in his day there weren't so many unfit SM's: even if they were chubby, they could walk 10 miles!

GaHillBilly

Thanks for all the responses -- gives me something to think about, for the future. For now, it seems more expedient to focus on the troop. Once things are running better, maybe I should reconsider what to do about OA.

Regarding my own son, I'm going to have to think some more. I only have the two data points (local ASM babysitting his son; miraculously advanced (fm Scout rank on Nov. 1 to 1st Class on Dec. 31) Scout elected to OA from another troop), but it would appear that the local OA is not too impressive. I'm leaning toward the idea that he has PLENTY to do within troop, and in the circumstances that exist, all the leadership opportunity he can stand.

About the babysitting ASM: Obviously, I wasn't there. However, I was told by someone who was, that he spent the night in his son's immediate physical proximity, against all the rules. And it was ONLY his son who was elected; he was not. This fits in with a council wide pattern of tolerating slackers, bogus ranks and bogus MBs.

GaHillBilly

Having had work trailers stolen myself, I'm partial to tongue locks. Chains and padlocks -- not so much!

Long story short, in years past my work crews had reason to carry 36" two-handled 'master keys' for Master padlocks. Believe me, unless you've been VERY careful in your padlock AND chain selection, a chain or lock can be popped in less time than it takes to find your key.

There's another technique that works pretty well, too: do something to disable the trailer (or vehicle). My father had one of the original US VW beetles with a reserve gas tank, but no gauge. The valve had 3 positions: main, off, reserve. He had to park in some bad places, and got in the habit of leaving the valve in 'off'. He twice had to walk 3 blocks to recover his car, and he had to replace vent windows twice, but the thieves abandoned the car.

A hidden ignition kill switch (or a coil -- not spark -- wire in the SM's pack) can guarantee your remotely parked vehicle is still there on your return from backpacking.

And, if you've got an air supply, putting blocks under a trailer's axle and then letting the air our of the tires can work well, too.

GaHillBilly

Back in 2001, OGE asked:

"I was an Ordeal Member as a scout, and recently made brotherhood, but aside from impressive ceremonies, and they are very impressive, what else does the OA do? I know what they are supposed to do, I just want to know what they actually do in your area?"

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=2419

EagleWB answered:

"Its purpose is to recognize campers who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives."

Mike Long responded:

"The OAs purpose is Service and to promote camping.

. . .

We do have a problem with member retention. To that end the lodge has become less about service and more about entertaining the kids. (To the lodge and orders detriment IMHO.)"

Before the thread wandered off into never-never land, a number of people talked about how awesome (or not so awesome) their ceremonies were.

My son & I are both new to Scouting, and are not in OA. One of the ASM's is really trying to push OA, but I can't figure out why. My son, after watching some singularly unimpressive candidates from another troop be tapped out, announced that, "If that's who goes into OA, I don't EVER want to be in OA!" If I judge on those ground alone, I'd be inclined to agree.

My negative impression of OA is reinforced by the fact that the same ASM who's pushing OA stayed with his son, during his son's "Ordeal". And, by the fact that (like some of the posters in OGE's thread) all he talks about is OA's Indian ceremonies. My reaction -- kept to myself -- has been that if I wanted to join the Order of the Red Fez, I wouldn't be in Scouts!

It's worked out that I seem to have the opportunity to develop and schedule much of the skills and instruction periods in troop meeting and campouts over the next year. It's likely that I can minimize discussion of OA, simply by saying that we need to keep our eyes on the ball -- which is appropriate basic skill instruction, in the case of our troop. And, that's precisely what I'm inclined to do.

But, maybe there's something I'm missing, since I've never been in OA. Ya'll have, and maybe you can 'school' me.

So, my question is, in terms of the fundamental goals of Scouting, is OA worth the time and energy it takes? How?

GaHillBilly(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)