Hunt

BSA is facing the old problem of how much autonomy to give people in the organization, and what to do when they mess up. It seems to me that BSA is just letting us know that we still have autonomy, but when we mess up, the benefit of the doubt will go to the scout, not the adult leader. BSA would rather award some Eagles that haven't really been earned than deny Eagles that have been unreasonably hampered by adult leaders.

This has come up enough times that it is obvious to me that the requirement to do pull-ups should be dropped from the Tenderfoot requirement entirely, or it should be clarified to define improvement as any improvement. I have never seen this sort of problem or discussion with any other requirement--while the swimming requirements also hold some people back, I can't recall people complaining about it.

The other troop may be a longer drive, but if it's like most reasonable troops, he'll probably come back from the second or third meeting with Tenderfoot, and maybe more ranks if he's already done the requirements. I just can't fathom the attitude of the troop, unless there is more to the story and for some reason they think he isn't really trying.

What if National sold an annual DVD-ROM or CD-ROM set that included all current pamphlets and requirements, with permission to print out copies for boys in a unit to use? Would you buy it, and how much would you pay?

I would find a new troop. This demonstrates an attitude of adult control that will manifest itself in other ways as well.

It would never be screwed in, because one person would turn it one way a few degrees, and then the next person would turn it in the opposite direction and so on ad infinitem.

Lisa, does the Troop have an Advancement Coordinator? If so, maybe that person would be willing to have a talk with the scout, just to see where he stands with respect to his advancement. As you suggest, boys are often more responsive to such discussions from adults other than parents.

On Al Gore and the internet: I think Gore did try to take credit for the creation of the Internet, and he deserves some of the credit. But the Republican soundbite would not have been very effective if it had just pointed out that Gore exaggerated his contribution. So somebody came up with the idea of saying that Gore claimed to have "invented" the internet. Gore should have just laughed this off--but he wasn't a very good campaigner. I suspect that the Democrats will finally have learned from the misteps of Gore and Kerry, and that in the next campaign responses to criticisms will be much more swift and savage. Hopefully, they have realized that they can't sit back and be beaten up as Kerry was by the swift boat people, even if they don't want to "dignify" the attacks with a response.

"And you still seem peeved at me for properly calling you a liar a couple of years ago, if we're now commenting on each other's motives for posting."

Well, I certainly do recall that piece of uncalled-for nastiness on your part, Merlyn, and you've exhibited the same behavior to others, equally without justification. I think it's fair for me to point out when you're just trolling, but I can see why you're sensitive about it--it really is kind of pathetic. Your motives have simply become more apparent since BSA has moved away from government-sponsored units, and you've had to move away from a reasonable law-based argument against BSA to more general vituperation.

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own."

This is an interesting definition, but it's still not clear enough, because I'm not sure what it means to be "intolerant" of somebody else's opinions. Does that mean we can't say we think somebody else is wrong? Or just that we can't suppress their right to express their opinions? Or that we shouldn't mock or denigrate them for having differing opinions? Personally, I have many opinions that I think are correct, and that opposing opinions are wrong. I hold these in varying degrees of certainty.

To me, labelling somebody else's opinion as "bigotry" is simply a way to avoid engaging on the merits--you simply assume from the start that your opinion is the correct one, and that anybody who has a different view is "prejudiced." Of course, you came to your position by a careful consideration of all the facts, etc.--as opposed to your opponent, who is just a slavish follower of dogma.

This is one that's hard to answer without really knowing more details. You aren't the SM, and the other adult leaders don't see the same problem you do. The two extremes, then might be:

1. You are the one "kill-joy" leader who is always restricting and controlling the boys.

2. You are the one leader who is actually paying attention to safety.

You have to make a judgment on where you fall in the spectrum between these two. The fact that other leaders don't see the same problem is something you should take into consideration in deciding if your position is the correct one.

I remember saying back when Bush was first elected that I didn't think he was competent, but fortunately he had experienced and solid people like Cheney and Rumsfeld to run things.

I would like to teach my children that the way to succeed in life is to "work hard and play by the rules." Unfortunately, what I read in the paper every day suggests that the way to succeed in life is to gain the favor of powerful and rich people, who can protect you from the impact of the rules, and who can help you to get ahead even if you don't work very hard. The best I can tell the kids is that working hard and playing by the rules is the honorable way to act, even if it may not lead to the greatest levels of worldly success.

Do you think that an honestly held belief, based on religious teachings and traditions, that homosexual sexual behavior is morally wrong is "bigotry?" I think using this kind of loaded term makes it difficult to discuss the issue in a civil manner, because it simply labels the person who disagrees with you--it prejudges his notions, in other words. If one side of the debate is composed of "bigots," and the other side is composed of people pushing the "gay agenda," it's very difficult to reach any kind of understanding or compromise.

Here's the compromise: Both sides need to recognize there there are people of good will on the other side who have rational reasons for believing as they do. They need to accept that there is room in the world (and in Scouting, I think) for people who disagree, even on major questions. This is why I think that Chartering Organizations should have the authority to decide whether they will allow openly gay members and leaders (just as they have the right to allow or exclude female leaders, or to limit membership to members of their own organization).

"Ed, you still have no idea why I posted, so your bizarre "reasons" you make up for me are way off."

I'm not sure I know why you posted, either. Your old posts used to suggest that your beef with BSA was that it received public funds while discriminating against atheists, and that this was against the law. I guess you've broadened your purpose to point out all of BSA's discriminatory ways, whether they are legal or not. You come across as somebody who is just an enemy of BSA, and who takes glee in any public criticism of BSA, even if it's something as lame and inconsequential as a scene in an Adam Sandler movie. I guess it provides a hobby for you, and for Ed and some of the rest of us, too.

I never knew Adam Sandler was such an important opinion leader. Personally, I intend to boycott this movie--but since I've boycotted all of his movies, that's not much of a statement. By the way, if it's like most of his movies, I expect you'll see gay groups criticizing it too.

I'm still not sure I understand the question here. I think maybe usetobeafox wants to tell the EBOR something negative about this scout outside his presence, and is concerned that it won't remain confidential because a member of the board is too friendly with the candidate. If that's the case, it seems to me that it would be better for the SM to tell the scout that he doesn't support his Eagle candidacy.

But it's not clear that this is the situation.

I think W has been one of the worst presidents ever, and I blame Clinton and Kerry for it. It's clear to me that if Clinton had avoided personal hanky-panky, Gore would have easily won the 2000 election. Without Monicagate, there's no way W could have won (in fact, I wonder if the Republicans would have chosen him as their candidate if Gore hadn't been so hampered by Clinton's behavior). Then, in 2004, Kerry ran a simply lousy campaign.

Now, of course, it's W who's damaged goods, and the result may be a Hillary Clinton presidency. If that happens, you can blame W for it.

In my son's troop, we have had situations in which there was a mistake that got by the SM, and the boy was not in fact ready for his BOR. This was pretty obvious from examination of the records (ie, not enough time in POR). There was no need to grill the boy about whether he had really completed the requirements. You really can't do more than spot-check, anyway, unless you have a suspicion that something wasn't really done.

However, I am aware of occurrences in other troops in which boys "failed" BORs because they were unable to demonstrate certain skills on demand, even thought the requirement was signed off (such as tying knots). Since the requirement is to have tied the knot, not to be able to tie it at the BOR, this is just wrong.

We've read accounts here of boys failing BORs becuase of perceived problems with their morals or degree of Scout Spirit. I can understand these, but there is a real problem in the unit if the SM signed off Scout Spirit and the BOR disagrees.

""I feel like this was a political solution where the county commissioners wanted to cut the baby in half and what they gave us was the short end of the stick," he said"

What a great mixed metaphor!

I think it odd that having sinned in the past would disqualify somebody from being Pope. After all, I seem to recall reading the person reputed to be the first Pope actually denied Christ, not once, but three times.

I'm strongly against retesting at BORs of any kind, because I know from experience that some adults can't resist overdoing it and "failing" boys who can't remember how to tie a particular knot on command, or who get flustered and say the elements of the Scout Law out of order. Personally, I would rather have BORs be a rubber stamp than an adult power trip. As others have noted, if the SM is doing his job, the BOR shouldn't have to worry about whether the requirements have been done, and can rather have the kind of positive discussion a BOR is supposed to be. (Note: the idea that the BOR is a "rubber stamp" if it doesn't look over the SM's shoulder on rank achievements is just a misunderstanding of what the BOR is supposed to be.)

Ed, of course if you find out in the course of the discussion that a requirement wasn't done, then obviously the BOR should adjourn so the boy can fix the problem. If, however, you ask whether the requirements were really done, in my opinion you are showing disrespect for the Scout and for his Scoutmaster.

In our council we were told that all MBCs must submit a separate registration, even if they are already registered as a Scouter in another position. There is no fee for the MBC registration, but they did make us submit them.

I think it's interesting that Ed mentioned NCLB and zero tolerance together--to me, they both demonstrate a very difficult tension in education (and many other settings): namely, how much discretion to give the people who have to deliver the "program." Zero tolerance and NCLB are both in part a response to many, many situations in which the program deliverers couldn't be trusted with discretion and did a lousy job. The problem, of course, is that these initiatives tie the hands of people who can be trusted with discretion and would do a better job without the limitations. I mean, you'll probably never get spoiled food in a McDonalds, but you'll never get a gourmet meal either.

"Rather, I think that the arena of faith is one that sometimes provides a refuge for persons who don't want to exercise rational thought."

Well, it may be that altruism isn't really rational, and that may explain why the Mother Theresas of the world are willing to sacrifice their own comforts to care for others.

I would also add that while modern communication makes it easier to know about the atrocities that occur anywhere in the world, it also makes it easier to know more about people in other contries and people from other cultures--and that makes it harder to demonize them.