GaHillBilly

My personal reasons for opposing laser tag and paintball are not the ones behind the G2SS. Rather, I dislike both games because I think they are hurtful to our troop.

First, they are expensive, and leave the Scouts with nothing to show for the expense -- no skills, no equipment, nothing but an empty wallet. Given that our troop's opportunity to grow requires us to reach out to single parent homes (a concept VERY close to B-P's ideas!), and given that BSA National has decided that uniform and book sales should be an important corporate revenue center, the $$$'s of Scouting are a major issue for us.

Second, they tend not to be team building. Johnny Uncoordinated gets told, you stay here in the bunker with Billy Toofat, and we'll go run around and look for the battle.

Third, they are not outdoors. Even most paintball is on prepared courses. Now, a paintball game in a National Forest, involving tracking and stalking and minimal auto-fire, might be another story. But, in our troop, a number of the older guys have learned to be rather timid house cats (afraid of water, afraid of heights, afraid of dark, afraid of snakes in the woods, . . . afraid of the woods in general), and I'd prefer to avoid that fate for the younger guys.

GaHillBilly

Well, GW, I stand corrected!

Upon receiving your more definite information, it appears I was wrong. 'Prejudicial interpretation' does not offer reliable results. At best, it offers results that are usually correct.

But, in my judgment, the primary problem with prejudice is that people tend to cling to their prejudicial determined conclusions after they've been determined to be incorrect.

And, it may well be that with time, and a larger sample, I'll discover that my prejudicial judgment concerning knot-wearers is also incorrect. Hopefully, I'll then be willing to correct that judgment as well!

GaHillBilly

Interesting . . . very interesting.

BW, I continue to be amazed by the way you mix real and bogus knowledge. I would have thought someone as literate as you would have actually looked up the definition of "prejudice", before accusing me of not knowing it. Even if you didn't care about anything else, I would have guessed you'd check first just to avoid the egg on your face!

Crow, for supper, anyone?

GW, In my original post, I didn't say that the choice I made was between someone with knots vs. someone without. I said the choice was between someone with a chestful of knots, vs with "worn but mostly bare uniform shirts".

If a new unworn shirt without knots signifies anything (especially right now), one way or another, I don't know what it would be.

But, going out on a limb a bit, GW I'm gonna guess, based on my "observation" of your posts, and my 'prejudicial interpretation' of those observations . . . that you wear a bunch of knots.

GaHill--"I gots no knots!"--Billy

"A lot of people follow a carrot on a stick, but that doesn't make the carrot a good leader."

Hadn't heard that one before . . . it sure does apply to a LOT of situations near (and not so dear) to me. I think that sentence will be showing up around our troop, a LOT! :0)

GaHillBilly

No, BW, my observations are not PRE-judiced . . . they are observations.

But, the work "prejudice" has acquired an unreasoned pejorative connotation.

Actually, prejudice is essential human behavior.

When you see a bear in the woods, you (I assume) endeavor to back away most carefully, in order to avoid a confrontation. You do so because you've prejudicial decided that the bear in front of you might, in the manner of some black bears, decide that you or your Scouts look like lunch, even though you know that many bears are entirely innocent of such dietary tendencies!

When you go to Walmart (or Saks 5th Avenue), to purchase bath accessories, you probably purchase the brands you've been using. You do this, even though you know (or should know) that the actual contents of national branded packages occasionally change without notice, and even though you know (or should know) that the odds are that there are 2 or 3 other types of soap (or bath oil or what not) that are superior to, and cheaper than, the one you're buying. You persist in using your brand, choosing it prejudicially, because you know it's likely to be better than most of the 25 (or 100) other alternatives. You do this, even though what's in the package many not be what you (prejudicially) expect, and even though you have (unfairly!) excluded all the other brands from a chance to compete for your business.

The fact is that people have neither the time nor the brain power to make each and every decision they make purely on the evidence. Instead, they resort (most of the time) the lessons they think (often incorrectly) that past experience has taught them. They do this when they buy soap, meet bears, select recipes . . . and make judgments about Scouters.

They do so because the alternative to prejudicial decisions is often paralysis!

There are times when prejudice systematically steers us in the wrong direction, and needs to be systematically corrected. And, prejudice always needs to be recognized for what it is: an imprecise, approximate means of decision making that is a necessity because of our finitude and ignorance.

But, to simply dismiss a decision, because it's based on pre-judging something in the absence of better or more specific information is irrational, and even silly.

And, so, when I have to choose between Scouters and have no better information, I will recall my past observations and PREJUDICIALLY prefer those with few knots and worn shirts! When I get better information that corrects or confirms my PREJUDICIALLY-based decision, I will respond (or try to respond) based on the new information.

But BW, I strongly suspect that you are rational enough so that -- when you are not busy correcting me -- you do the same.

GaHillBilly

BW,

I wasn't -- and did not -- question the legitimacy of their knots. I'm sure they met the requirements, which for the many of the knots means having worked with various levels of Cub Scouts for a long time.

But, the guys I've seen with really successful troops behind them, and the guys I've seen with significant outdoor skills didn't wear lots of knots.

Your milage may vary: it's entirely possible that in your area the truly great SM's wear lots of knots, and salivate over the various Silver knots. It may even be that many good SM's here do so as well, since I don't even begin to know them all.

But it remains true that, in the small sample of Scouters I've met in my brief tenure as a Scouter myself, knots have proved to be a negative indicator of overall Scouting skill, not a positive one. To put it another way, if there are two parallel sessions at an OLS, I'll gravitate toward the guy with fewer knots!

GaHillBilly

Thanks for all the responses so far. Barry, your response is particularly pertinent. I believe I need to remind myself again and again not to 'tilt at windmills' (a la Don Quixote), but to focus on what can be done, and avoid letting myself become frustrated at the other stuff.

Also . . . just to give a better perspective on things, the ex-Eagle leader and I are now co-operating pretty successfully (or at least it seems to me!). My point in mentioning him was simply because his remark was such a clear example of the "Scouting = my experience of it" equation, not that he's remained stuck there.

GaHillBilly

As I've thought, read about, and experienced Scouting since my son and I entered a year and a half ago, I've concluded that there seem to be three distinct concepts of Scouting:

1. Scouting as Baden-Powell conceived and described it;

2. Scouting as BSA describes it now (in literature both old and new);

3. Scouting as Scouters themselves have experienced it, as Scouts, and as participants in the local district and council.

I recently concluded that concept #3 dominates at least in my district. I've found that I'm far more versed in Scout literature than any of the local Scouters I've come to know. As far as I can tell, I'm the only leader in my son's troop who even owns a Scoutmaster Handbook, much less the G2SS or the Troop Program Resources.

What dominates the concept of Scouting that most Scouters I've met have, is not Baden-Powell's concept, which seems to be almost totally unknown, nor even BSA's official concept, as published, but their own personal experiences, which they take as an authoritative guide.

One ASM, who is a former Eagle Scout, even told me directly that he knew all there was to know about Scouting, and that I should ask him if I had a question about how something should be. This came up in the context of a question I'd posed about discrepancies between the troop's organization and BSA policy and standards. He expressed himself quite forcefully, so I dropped the question and backed down. But, I was left quite puzzled and confused because the troop's practice was not only in violation of BSA standards but was clearly hurting the troop. Eventually, I discovered that these practices -- bad as they were -- were the way he'd experienced Scouting, himself.

I have several questions:

1. How do you challenge definitions of "boy led" and "patrol method" and concepts of adequate training that are clearly contrary to concept #1 (BP's) and #2 (BSA's) above, but are 'how they experienced it'?

2. How can you most effectively break the 'sins of the fathers' cycle that inflicts on today's Scouts the sins and deficiencies of today's Scouter's Scoutmasters?

3. How can you most helpfully communicate 'that (Scouting) vision thing' to Scouters who've already 'got it' (and here's their Eagle knot to prove it!)?

GaHillBilly

As some one new to Scouting, my view of Scouting knots has been shaped by my PERSONAL & LOCAL --- and I understand that others may not share this --- experience, which has been that there is a direct correlation between the number of knots, and the uselessness of the leader.

It works the other way, too. The guys I've found most helpful & knowledgeable had worn but mostly bare uniform shirts.

I'm now eligible for at least one, and maybe two knots, as well as some other patches. But, I'm leaving them off. At least in my local area, they seem to signify ineffectiveness.

GaHillBilly

Wow, thanks!

All in all, I find myself fascinated by the design of Scouting as it is in BSA. The explanation I've given to others new to Scouting is that it's designed like pie with a missing wedge AND a small circle in the center. The idea is that the CO will supply the wedge and center.

In reality, most CO's don't (outside the LDS troops) and the wedge and center are filled with what's sometimes been called "American Civic Religion". This worked, sorta, in the past, when ACR was a sort of rah-rah nationalistic ethical system loosely based on orthodox Christianity, but sharing orthodox Christianity's ethical values (except grace and forgiveness, of course!).

But, ACR has pretty much been eroded as a national value base. And the UMC (#1 CO in our region) has adopted national values, on homosexuality and so forth, that are in direct conflict with the BSA values of the troops they sponsor. This is, IMHO, a ticking time bomb!

I think there are differences between B-P's views and even early BSA structure at this point, but the nationalistic ethicalism that seems to be at the philosophical center of B-P's Scouting had eroded in Britain long before it did here.

This is why I think evangelical churches and homeschoolers should be a major target of the BSA's marketing, communication and support efforts. These groups as COs, broadly speaking, can bring a 'center' to sponsored troops, even as the US cultural consensus the BSA long depended on continues to dwindle away.

GaHillBilly

All in all, Kudu, a fascinating post!

Your points about Scouting seem very much different than the prevailing views here, AND what I find in the current Scout literature I have. Actually, the position you seem to be arguing is one I personally find more attractive and plausible than the prevailing one.

The fact that you address B-P's philosophy is also atypical -- I'd begun to think I was the only one who found the roots of his thinking fascinating, as the prevailing use of B-P's writings seems to be as a mine from which to extract useful 'proof-texts'.

But, I hope your understanding of B-P is better than it seems to be of Xianity. Not many of the Church Fathers (or Reformers!) would welcome being accused of claiming that men are "inherently evil" in the sense, 'totally evil', that your comment seems to imply. I don't even think Golding went that far. And hardly any of the Father or Reformers would agree that it is a "Christian principle" to claim that men are "inherently good". I suspect that heresy has been widely accepted only in modern times!

B-P was educated during the late 1800's, a time of great philosophical ferment in semi-educated English-speaking circles. One of the driving forces was a naively optimistic view of evolution as having an "upward direction". This concept was neither Christian nor scientific, but it was popular and pervasive and apparently very, very appealing to ruling members of the British Empire. In fact, this idea manages to be heresy with respect to BOTH Christianity and scientific principles.

Nevertheless, it was combined with religious-like language (ie, Christian like language) in a sometimes orgiastic nature religion. Books like Stratton-Porter's "Freckles" and E. R. Burrough's "Tarzan". It's my impression that B-P's thought has more in common with their half-baked optimistic evolutionism, than with either orthodox Christianity or scientific principles.

It's amazing to me how sometimes some amazingly good ideas -- like Scouting -- sometimes arise out of such seriously polluted soil!

You wrote "The 21st century assumption that a popular but skill-less senior Scout has ANY business being a Patrol Leader is based on the modern idea that "boy-led" means that adults should remain strictly "hands-off" and not influence popularity contests". This statement EXACTLY describes the functional view -- not necessarily held consciously -- of the leaders of the troop we're now in.

My own previous experience with youth convinces me that many youth can do FAR more than what adults think IF (and mostly ONLY IF) they are given training. Unfortunately, my experience of local Scouters has tended to explain why the Scouts are untrained: the leaders don't have the skills, either! Many of them are former Scouts themselves, and were apparently short on training. My observation is that most Scouters tend to define "Scouting" by what they experienced as Scouts, and not by what they read in either current Scout literature . . . or in B-P's writings.

So . . . can you point me to some texts documenting B-P's thinking regarding PL selection? It's not that I think he's necessarily right in all cases, but he's "authoritative" and having "authority" on your side can help when trying to change people's minds.

GaHillBilly

BIG Hm...mmnh!

So . . . if I had a popular, but skill-less senior Scout who is destined to be PL of a new patrol being formed, and I parked his patrol several hundred feet away from adult resources so that his patrol mates had to rely on his (and their) lack of skills . . . there might be some whole new attitudes toward learning skills and toward him, come Monday night.

Is that an anticipated and desired result?

I'm not sure that the parents of those boys would view the difficulties their sons would experience that weekend as an acceptable outcome, however.

GaHillBilly

Well, color me frustrated.

I think what I need more than anything else here is humility. The problem is too complex for me to 'figure out' with any certainty. My way MIGHT be better, but I don't know that. And if I get frustrated because I can't do that I think best, and then expose those feelings, I'm just going to make things worse.

I'm gonna think some more, and pray some more. God knows what's best, but I don't, and I need to remember that a lot more than I do.

However, just to stir the pot . . . I discovered that one of the Scouts who wants to be Troop Guide or Troop Instructor, can't even tie a square knot!

C'est la vie!

I'm gonna have a glass of wine and go to bed!

GaHillBilly

I want to thank those who've posted helpful thoughts, observations, or recommendations. I've reread them several times, as I've worked on preparing for this weeks troop meeting.

A couple of quick comments.

- Neither I, nor the SM, are totally giving up on the older guys. In fact, one of the older guys will likely be a part of the 'focus' patrol. But, working with the others will require some movement on their part. It's hard for me to even imagine one of the boys (or his parents) acknowledging any problem. In the case of another, his parent is running interference -- I am almost certain the boy is reachable, but not while his parent is preventing him from acknowledging any need to improve.

- I appreciate the remarks about treating the boys with verbal respect. I think that's a really good suggestion. I'm going to have to think about how I can implement that here.

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

Gold Winger, I had assumed that your post was facetious, not serious. But, your 2nd post convinced me that you must be serious. I still find this hard to believe. Would you actually be willing to take a non-swimmer that is seriously afraid of water over his head on a white water trip?

Here's what the G2SS says:

"3. Swimming Ability

A person who has not been classified as a "swimmer" may ride as a passenger in a rowboat or motorboat with an adult swimmer, or in a canoe, raft, or sailboat with an adult who is trained as a lifeguard or a lifesaver by a recognized agency. In all other circumstances, the person must be a swimmer to participate in an activity afloat. Swimmers must pass this test:

Jump feetfirst into water over your head. Swim 75 yards in a strong manner using one or more of the following strokes:sidestroke, breaststroke, trudgen, or crawl; then swim 25 yards using an easy resting backstroke. The 100 yards must be swum continuously and include at least one sharp turn. After completing the swim, rest by floating. This qualification test should be renewed annually."

Now, as BW has pointed out, only the bits in bold are absolutely mandatory, but this is not one 'recommendation' I'm going to ignore. Personally, I'd bail out on a trip, before I'd allow non-swimmers on a whitewater trip where I had leadership responsibility. As it happens, I am a trained lifeguard and instructor, but one of the things such training teaches is that good guards avoid or prevent problems far more often then they perform rescues. There's no way I'm going to set myself up to have to attempt a water rescue of a panicked non-swimmer in white water!

I find it stunningly naive and uninformed on your part that you --apparently -- would do so!

Your original post pretty much reflects the thinking of the Scouters and parents who've created this mess, but I would have thought they'd be embarrassed to defend their actions publicly. But, if your post was serious -- and given your 2nd post, I have to assume that it was -- maybe I'm mistaken.

I'm tempted to dismember your 1st post, but doing so is not the way I need to use my time, right now.

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

Again, I'd like to offer my thanks to those with helpful comments. And I suppose, GW, that even your comments were helpful in a way. You always need to know the enemy, and without your posts I would have never guessed that anyone would be so brazen as to defend skill-less Scouting in public.

GaHillBilly

ScoutNut, it's not entirely obvious from my initial post, but the older Scouts don't lack skills, because they've lost or forgotten them. They lack skills because they never had them in the first place!

The causes are the usual ones: merit badge mills, (ie, colleges); an out of council camp that is apparently worst camp in the US, for generating bogus rank advancement and merit badges; a somewhat indecisive SM dealing with a group of Scouter parents intent on their sons gaining Eagle, no matter how much fudging was required, etc.

You write, "To me, it sounds like you are ready and willing to write them all off in favor of the more adventurous, "teachable", younger Scouts." This is precisely correct. I am willing to write them off, rather than to start a war.

If you know how to help them, in a manner they and their parents will accept, I'm all ears!

For someone to learn (or relearn!) a skill, he has to acknowledge that he presently lacks that skill. That is *SO* not happening in this case.

I'm open (and even seeking!) better options here. But please, work with me on the problem I have: unskilled Scouts who never learned the skills in the first place and who have parents who are proud as punch of their AMAZING and WONDERFUL nearly-Eagle Scouts.

GaHillBilly

"What it sounds like, to me, is a big Roses, Thorns, and Buds session ... amongst the youth. I think there are some issues and challenges, let's get them into the open."

Getting in the open, is unfortunately the very thing I'm trying to avoid. There are at least two sets of parents of senior Scouts who are in serious denial about their child's skill sets and performance. Getting it in the open would start a war almost as quickly as challenging the wanna-be Eagle.

GaHillBilly

My son's troop has problems with skills. (Don't they all?) As best I can tell, the problems are typical in this Council, but I'm too new to Scouting to have any idea whether they are typical nationwide.

Anyhow, just a few examples:

+ Eagle candidate, with Swimming MB who can't pass 1st class swim test currently, and who is terrified of water over his head.

+ Same guy couldn't tie a square knot at camp, and butchered a 60' rope of mine, because he didn't know how to tie a sheep shank or a clove hitch on a bight.

+ Recently, none of the Scouts, 1st class or higher, could orient a map using a compass.

+ Likewise, none of senior Scouts, all of whom had the First Aid MB, none could tell how to deal with a broken bone.

+ One of the most senior Scouts has difficulties pitching his own tent.

+ Another senior Scout recently ID'd a hemlock as a "pine", a sweet gum as a "maple" (well, that's more excusable), and a hickory as an "oak".

We were not part of the troop during the period when these guys gained rank and MB's without gaining skills, but they are old enough now (16+), so that it will be tough -- even for the ones who acknowledge the lack of skills -- for them to acquire those skills in the time left.

The troop is absolutely boy lead, now, but somewhere along the way, the whole idea of teaching Scouts a skill, before expecting them to use it, got skipped. One consequence of this whole approach has been that the older Scouts like level campgrounds accessible by car and flat calm water.

The younger Scouts are generally more physically fit and acquire new skills more easily than the older ones. They also are, as a group, more adventurous. They are beginning to chafe at the outing restrictions created by the older Scout's timidity and lack of skills.

But, the worst part is that some of the most senior Scouts aspire to the Troop Guide and Troop Instructor POR's, and want to 'teach' the younger Scouts. A couple of these guys have good personalities, and would end up 'teaching' the younger Scouts to be Scouts just like they are -- almost skill-less. My thinking is that THAT something worth fighting against.

However, there's an opening in terms of restructured patrols to do things a bit differently. I've thought of many different ideas, but the one I'm currently mulling over is to restructure the patrols based on interest in specific types of outings. This would allow the older, skill-less Scouts to be clustered in their patrols, and the younger and more adventurous Scouts (along with some 'teachable' older Scouts) in the other patrols.

In turn, this would allow the younger Scouts to go on "patrol outings" that the whole troop (and senior Scouts) would never attempt. Skills work on these outings wouldn't step on the toes of the older Scouts (and their parents), since they wouldn't be there.

But, there may be all sorts of pitfalls in such an approach that I've overlooked, but that hopefully, y'all will notice.

GaHillBilly

John-in-KC wrote: "Our challenge is too many new arrivals show up on our doorsteps with little training and less patience. They think the program should look like X, when the literature says ABC."

As a new arrival (which 18 mos into Scouting, I guess I still am), I've resembled that remark, at least to some degree. But, I know that the problem for me and for at least some other "new arrivals" is the converse of what you stated. Instead of expecting the program to look like X, I expected it to look like ABC, as described in Scout literature, but found it actually looked like X.

My experience with Scouting is obviously not broad, but in my own small area, I've found that many Scouters define "Scouting", not by what's in the literature, but by what they experienced as Scouts and as Scouters. And, it's become obvious that what they experienced was considerably different than what's described in the literature.

This surprised me initially, but I realized that it made sense, in a frail human sort of way, once I thought about it. But it does create a real sense of dislocation in your "new arrivals" if they come to the program knowing at least some of the literature, and encounter Scouters who are operating on their past experience alone, with almost no knowledge of that literature*.

And, while I doubt that my experience is the most common case, I'm pretty sure it's not that rare, either.

GaHillBilly

Sorry about posting this in the wrong place -- I didn't even know this sub-section existed.

I was interested to hear the story of the Silva US vs Silva Sweden -- I'd gathered that something like that must have happened, but I didn't know what.

FWIW though, Johnson Outdoors WILL fulfill the lifetime warranty obligations on old Silva compasses. Now . . . if I can just find that old Silva Ranger with the sticking aluminum bezel!

GaHillBilly

I'm working on the Hiking MB with a group of boys in my son's troop, and had an interesting and disturbing experience yesterday. Like many troops, ours is not well off, and so Walmart camping equipment is often a Godsend. Some of the equipment is not bad, and some is pretty good. Of course some of it sucks, but that's never been a problem since Walmart has always been willing to take it back.

However yesterday, while trying to teach the boys how to orient their maps, and take bearings off the map for various legs of their hikes, I encountered a substantial discrepancy between the compasses. We were using starter Suunto and Silva compassses of mine, and a Walmart Chinese made compass that belonged to one of the boys. Initially, we thought the problem was that we were on top of steel reinforcing in the concrete of the church's porch, so we moved to the parking lot

The problem persisted, but I noticed that we were now under the 3 phase service drop for the church. So we moved again . . . and the problem persisted.

Finally, I became suspicious of the compasses, and lined them up side by side, with just enough separation to avoid having the magnetism of one compass affect the other. The Suunto and Silva were always within 1 - 2 degrees of each other, but the Wallyworld model was consistently showing magnetic north to be about 20 degrees west of the other two.

I had some more Wallyworld units, and one of boys had another. ALL were off by 5 degrees or more. Obviously, this would mess up any Scout trying to use them for orienteering purposes, but the 15 - 20 degree errors could cause more serious problems.

So my recommendation is that before you trust a Wallyworld compass, compare it to another (preferably, more than one) more reliable model.

GaHillBilly

Wow.

I voted for the man twice, but I didn't realize anyone was still "for" him. I'm with Beavah -- he's been a HUGE disappointment. I don't blame him so much for the Iraq/WMD debacle -- after all, Saddam had even fooled his own top generals on that issue -- as I do for keeping "Dumsfield" in office long after every noncom and private in uniform realized he was an arrogant high-IQ idiot.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid Obama will be worse. Has anyone else noticed that he has the MOST liberal voting record, by several metrics, of any current US senator? Once he leaves office, I'm afraid Federal law will only allow Scout troops to appoint new SM's who are in a committed, and temporarily monogamous, homosexual relationship, lest the Scouts be distorted by overexposure to sexist and classist views concerning the viability of the oppressive right-wing and male dominated traditional family structure.

And, once Obama pulls all the troops, gas prices will be $25/gallon and the OTHER Obama -- sorry, Osama -- will rule Iraq.

People often say, "it couldn't be worse". Truth is, that's never true.

Bush screwed up in Iraq very badly. Obama can, and probably will, screw it up much worse. But, as was written, "these are the times that try women's souls!".

GaHillBilly

A couple of notes:

1. "more honest" doesn't equal "honest", just like "lighter" doesn't equal "white".

As noted there are plenty of dishonest conservatives. And, personally, I don't believe anyone is completely honest. The title would have about the same meaning if it read, "conservatives are crooks less often than liberals".

But, please note the article was specifically NOT about politicians themselves. I'm not sure if it's even possible to be really honest AND be elected to a major political position in the USA.

2. Yes *dude*, I read the article. Did you?

The article does NOT say conservatives are "honest", or "good" or "generous" or any other such thing. It just says that, by self-report, self-described liberals are less honest than self-described conservatives.

(By the way, if you want to challenge the article skillfully, a better ploy would be to argue that one could interpret the surveys to indicate that conservatives are just as dishonest as liberals, but that liberals are more honest about being dishonest! There's no *evidence* within the article for this, but there's no *evidence* to the contrary either. I'm sure you could find many here who'd consider such an argument as plausible. Given that lots of folks can't distinguish "plausible" from "proven", you quickly gain some who'd think you'd proven your point.)

3. I don't think -- speaking as a long-time but unenthusiastic Republican -- that Republicans ever had "rock-solid" "moral anchors" OR "ethical anchors". I've known some powerful Republicans who I could absolutely trust not to steal from me ONLY because I never had enough to interest them. And I've known some religious-right Republicans who I consider to be major hypocrites.

BUT . . . again, the article was NOT about politicians.

(If you want to talk politicians, it certainly appears to me that the majority of Presidents who were *personally* honest during my life time were Republicans. Nixon, obviously, was not among the honest. And, Carter was among the personally honest, even though he's a total airhead, in spite of his high IQ! But, none of the other Democratic presidents, in terms of personal honesty, came close to George H W Bush, much less Gerald Ford!)

One more time: the article speaks about honesty *comparatively*, not *absolutely*, and it's talking about NON-politicians who took surveys. Also, the writer is not precisely arguing a point, so much as *reporting* the outcome of a number of surveys.

GaHillBilly

"Conservatives more honest than liberals"

It's not my title, but I just couldn't resist. Apparently, a series of surveys have found that political liberals are considerably more likely to lie, cheat, or steal than conservatives. Here's the article:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1419425~Peter_Schweizer__Conservatives_more_honest_than_liberals_.html

OR

http://tinyurl.com/4dqvj7

GaHillBilly

"As for popcorn . . . I've sold boatloads of the stuff with my son because people realize that the money is going to Scouting."

One guy locally told me that he tells people the popcorn is 90% donation, 10% popcorn. That's trustworthy; that's what we'll do in the future no matter what we're told to do, or what literature we're given to use.

But, telling people that the popcorn is a good value -- which in the normal use of English means that the popcorn is a good value -- is just good ol' American (dishonest) salesmanship. And that's NOT trustworthy.

As for leadership, I won't try to get into the details, which I know irritate people. Suffice it to say that the leadership shown was no better than helpfulness of the projects "to any religious institution, school, or community".

Understand: I do not blame the boys for this, and I'm not saying that I think these boys should be denied their Eagles. After all they are playing by the rules of the system they've been Scouts in.

What I am saying is that 'Avery', when he says "I do not mean any of it" is playing by the same 'rules' that Scouters do when they call the popcorn "a good value".

GaHillBilly

" >>I do not believe in any god, deity, higher power, whatever. And when I say "to do my duty to god" or "a scout is reverent" or "one nation, under god", I do not mean any of it.