Hunt

I can describe something that was done in my son's pack for an AOL ceremony. It was impressive and not really dangerous--but whether it's a good idea, I'm now not so sure. The boys receiving AOL were each given a regular arrow (purchased at a hunting store) with a small amount of magician's flash paper wrapped around the business end. At the appropriate point in the ceremony, they extended the end of the arrow into the campfire, and the flash paper flared up impressively (but briefly). Flash paper burns brightly but with little heat (supposedly you can hold it in your hand, but I haven't tried it, nor would I). Again, I'm not sure I'd do this again, but it's a lot better than using a flammable liquid, and it was very memorable.

I agree with you, Bob, that the beef is with the counselor--but what do you say to the scout about it? If this happened with my son, at the very least I would urge him to do the requirement, even after the fact, so he could feel proud of the MB. (I.e, if he comes back from camp with a Lifesaving MB, but tells me they didn't bring up a 10-pound weight because the lake was too muddy, I'd say, "Hey, let's go to the pool and do it so you'll feel confident that you really can do all the requirements.") I'm less certain about what a SM should do with respect to the boys in the troop. Would it be wrong for him to make such a suggestion?

I have no particular problem with boys wanting things because they are "cool"--I think it's great that there are boys who think camping gear is cool. I also have little problem if they want something that is less practical or more expensive because it is "cool." So he wants the colorful Nalgene bottle, not the plain one, or a snazzy-looking backpack with fewer pockets than the plain one--OK. But I have more trouble with coolness trumping safety--thus, I wasn't so happy (just last night), when my 12-year-old said he's going to get a motorcycle when he's old enough because motorcycles are cool. As to the sheath knives, it seems to me that the knife isn't inherently bad or dangerous, but that improper behavior with such a knife is likely to cause greater damage than the same behavior with a smaller knife. That may be enough (especially with some boys I could name) to discourage the use of larger knives.

One of my college classrooms had a portrait of General Sherman in it. As a Southerner, I found this deeply disturbing.

Packsaddle, I suspect that your example--an evolutionary biologist describing creationism in order to show that it isn't scientifically based--would not be satisfactory to those who want opposing views to be "presented."

The Academic Bill of Rights is not bad--except for the provisions that would actually strip faculty members of academic freedom by forcing them to present dissenting views in the classroom. This means, I guess, that an evolutionary biologist would have to explain creationism. This idea would also be impossible to enforce (which views are so extreme you don't have to present them? Does a WWII historian have to present the views of holocaust deniers?).

I should add that it's pretty hard to draw a line between "competence" and differences of opinions. Can an academic be competent if he holds a completely discredited view?

Let me point out that US troops have been in Afghanistan longer than they've been in Iraq, and are still fighting there. And yet few liberals (except the most extreme) objected to invading that country, or have otherwise criticized that operation. I don't get the logic (because there isn't any) that says because I think one war is a bad idea, that I must think the same thing about all wars. Some are bad ideas, and some are good ideas. Unfortunately, leaders who can tell the difference are in short supply.

A couple of ideas:

1. Identify by sound.

2. Perhaps he could identify tracks by feeling casts of them, or could feel skins (if these are available at a nature center).

3. Allow him to identify the mammal by listening to a description provided by another observer.

The problem I see here is that the advancement requirements generally include objectively measurable goals ("tie a square knot"), but a few are very subjective ("be active"). The more subjective a requirement is, the more open to interpretation it is, and the more subject to unreasonable interpretation or abuse it is as well. Whether you do it in the context of one boy or by setting a bylaw, you still have to interpret what "active" means before you sign off on the requirement.

It's interesting to me how the Monica scandal continues to loom over the Clinton presidency the same way the Watergate scandal loomed over the Nixon presidency--although to me, they are quite different. But one gave us Carter, and the other gave us GWB--in both cases I suggest these candidates would never have won, or even made it to the nomination, if the other party hadn't been so weakended by scandal. I liked Carter, but he wasn't an effective president. What I dislike the most about Bush is that although he took office in a very divided country (by a close vote), his instincts have been to polarize the country even further, not bring it together. Whatever you may think about Clinton, most of his policies were relatively middle-of-the-road, which is probably why he was reelected. I thought that would be true of Bush, too (as it pretty much was for his father) but that hasn't been the case.

From what I've read, Warren Harding may have been the worst president, and I think Nixon is the one who damaged our country the most in my lifetime. But I think Bush is pretty bad.

It's difficult and painful to tell a boy--no matter how you put it--that he didn't measure up. It makes it a little easier (for us, if not for him) if there is some objective standard that you can point to. On the other hand, if the standards are completely subjective, that makes it harder for the boy to accept criticism ("What do you mean I wasn't active? I came to all the meetings!") I guess my question for Bob is this--how specific do you get with a particular boy in determining in advance what will be considered "active" for him? Do you set an objectively measurable standard, or is it a subjective standard that you will judge at the end of the period? I'm not trying to be argumentative at all--we're facing the same issue in my son's troop with Eagle candidates who weren't all that active in their PORs--but were they active enough to get them over? What were they told in advance, etc.? It's very difficult.

Here's what I think happened--the scout worked on the MB his first summer at camp, and did all the requirements but one. After returning from camp, the scout did the last requirement, and the SM initialed the card, submitted the advancement report, and gave the scout the MB. I don't suspect the scout of cheating or seeking a loophole at all. The SM is gone; I suppose it is possible that he was a registered counselor for the MB in question, but I don't think so. Thus, this might be equivalent to finding out years later that a MB counselor wasn't registered.

I'm pretty sure the district records are OK, because I have a copy of the Advancement Report that was filed for the MB. Only I am aware that there is any issue, because I have the questionable blue card. I take it that the actual blue cards do not have to be produced for review by the Eagle BOR? Again, let me emphasize that in my view, this particular scout's problem--if there was one--was cured when he got another non-required merit badge shortly after being given Star rank.

Is there any real difference between the following formulations, or is it just semantics:

"Scout, our troop has a rule that you have to attend at least 50% of meetings and events in order to be considered active. The SM has the authority to relax this requirement in unusual cases."

"Scout, for your next rank there's a requirement that you be "active" in the troop. Although it isn't specifically defined, I'm sure you'll agree that it should mean that you're here most of the ti

Look, the primary definition of religion in Webster's is "a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers." That's also the common understanding of religion. Atheism is not a religion. It's a belief system that competes with religion.

It's also simply untrue that atheists by definition lack morals or ethics. It's an interesting argument whether their morals and ethics have any real basis without a religion, but to say they don't have any just isn't so, and is insulting to people of good will who aren't religiou

If an atheist said the following, I think the response would be different:

"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in ethics, values, and helping others. I believe that I could contribute to Scouting, and I believe that Scouting could contribute to the ethical and personal development of my sons. The only barrier to my participation and that of my sons is the religious requirement BSA imposes. While I realize that it's within the rights of the organization to have such a requirement, I would like to urge it to reconsider that requirement, and to extend its "ecumenical" reach to persons who, while they don't revere any divine being, do revere the ethical and moral principles embodied in the Scout Law."

A similar statement could be made (and has been made) by people who would like BSA to change its position on gay leadership.

However, most people who don't like BSA's policies don't use such an approach at all. Rather, they believe that BSA's policies are based on "ill will," and that some forceful means must be used to make BSA change its policies. This, of course, just makes BSA circle the wagons on both of these issues. The loud rhetoric of the BSA-bashers drowns out those who might try to persuade, and it becomes less likely, not more likely, that BSA will change its policies.

The list gives no details and the most recent info is from 1998. Most of the amounts are small. But again, why tell us? Your beef is with the people giving out these grants, if anybody.

I actually agree with you that the government shouldn't fund scouting programs themselves--but I just don't see that happening enough to make a big deal out of it. If what you'd really like is to convince BSA to change its religious requirement, you're certainly not going to do so by cutting off its government funds--there aren't enough. And you're not going to do it by insulting people. You might make some progress by explaining how people who aren't religious are nevertheless ethical, can contribute to Scouting, etc., etc. But your attitude here makes you seem like a killjoy, and I don't find that very persuasive.

Our district doesn't take any part of the blue cards--only the advancement report. What I have for most of the boys is both the troop record part of the card and the part the boy is supposed to have. I think previous leaders thought it wasn't a good idea to let the boys keep their part--this is something I intend to change.

While I agree that principles are important, I just don't see a single grant of $15,000 made several years ago as the basis for a crusade. C'mon, Merlyn, I've asked you several times--where's the real money? How many more grants like this are there? Has there been a deluge of them since the one given to Old Baldy? Has Old Baldy even tried to get any more? I certainly don't think this single incident is enough to accuse BSA of "feeding at the public trough."

Here's what I would do if I were the school--on the first informational flier from the school at the beginning of the year, I would inform the parents that fliers from various groups would be sent home, and that the school doesn't necessarily endorse their views. Then all the parents are on notice, and they can tell their kids if they feel like it.

Bob, you left out "pants on fire."

Even if a court ultimately decides that Old Baldy shouldn't have gotten the block grant (three years ago, by the way, so Bob isn't a liar if it's no longer happening)--my gosh, $15,000 is a tiny pittance compared to the BSA budget, or the budget of any Council. Is that all you've got? If you can't show me government funding of more than a fraction of a percent, you're wasting everybody's time with negligible amounts. I notice that Merlyn didn't answer my question of whether he posts here to persuade or annoy.

This is a difficult issue, because it is left up to the troop leaders to determine what "active" means. The advantage of the 50% rule is that it is an objective measure that is unlikely to be abused by capricious leaders. On the other hand, it seems to me to be too rigid, and could exclude deserving boys from advancement. For example, in my son's troop there is a boy who is inactive during football season, but very active at other times during the year. I think it's fine that those periods of inactivity slow down his advancement, but it would be a shame if he could never advance. How about this for a suggestion: The troop could say that it considers at least 50% attendance as a "benchmark" for being considered active, but that what will be considered active for each particular scout will be determined by the scout and the SM. (One note: 50% attendance is "active?" You'd be booted from your sports team, church choir, job, etc. at that level.)

For those shocked about this grant, let me remind everyone that this is one case, the grant was issued three years ago, for the princely sum of $15,000, and the lawsuit has apparently dropped into a black hole since the complaint was filed. What else do you have? Something with some real money involved?

If some county in another state gave $15,000 to a group I abhor, I'd go, "Tut, tut!" But I'd have the sense to realize that it is such a piddlingly small amount of money that the local people should deal with it, not me. For example, when the Judge put up the Ten Commandments monument, I felt that it was blatantly unconstitutional for him to do so. My response? "Tut, tut."

As I've mentioned before, I'm now the Advancement guy for my son's troop, and as a first order of business I'm looking at the records of Life scouts to see if there are any problems. Here's one situation that may have occurred--it's not totally clear--but I thought I would run it past the group.

A blue card for a non-required merit badge has a problem--say it doesn't appear to be signed by the counselor--but an advancement report was submitted, and the troop records show the merit badge was awarded. This occurred three years ago. The badge was relied upon to achieve Star rank. The scout received another non-required merit badge about a week after getting Star, and had excess badges before earning Life, and will have excess badges before going for Eagle. Is there a problem here? I would like to say that at most the Star BOR was a week premature, and any problem was cured by the additional merit badge. Let me add that the fault for the anomaly--if there is one--does not appear to be with the scout, but with the former SM. Let me also add that I am convinced that all requirements for the MB in question were, in fact, completed. Thoughts?

Merlyn, even if there is one case (apparently only one, since you keep harping on it) in which arguably a government grant went to a BSA group, it's ridiculous to accuse Bob White of "lying" when he says BSA doesn't get government funding. It's also unseemly, and won't gain you any points with the Scouters following this forum. Which brings me back to my refrain from other threads--why waste your time here? If you're not trying to persuade us--and your tone suggests you aren't--are you just trying to annoy us?

I think the problem is with the word "control." I see nothing wrong with the SM using this process to guide, advise, and influence the "flow" of MBs. In most cases, I suspect scouts who respect the SM will take his advice, if, for example, he says, "I think that MB is a bit too much for your first camp experience--why don't you try this one instead?"

I suppose one might imagine a scenario in which a SM could reasonably decline to sign blue cards. How about this one: "Hey, Mr. SM, could you sign blue cards for all the Eagle-required MBs for me? I know I'm just a Tenderfoot, but this way I won't have to bother you for signatures when I actually get ready to do them..."