NJCubScouter

These discussions always seem to wind around to the issue of tenting arrangements at some point. I think that if a particular troop had a Scout(s) who was openly gay, people in the troop could decide who is going to sleep where. Maybe everybody would be more comfortable if the gay kid had his own tent. If that's what works, so what? We don't need legislation from National about it, and it doesn't have to be resolved in this forum. I think we can trust people at the unit level to do what works for them. Now, on the other hand, I do favor separate tenting arrangements for males and females, and I don't think that's inconsistent. We KNOW that there are going to be heterosexuals in units. Depending on whose figures are correct, 90 to 98 percent of people are heterosexual. (My guess is in the 96-98 percent range.) We're such an overwhelmingly large proportion of the population, you can't get away from us, really. So it makes sense to have a specific national policy that deals with us. If there is a stray gay Scout or Venturer here or there, don't worry, it will all be worked out.

Along the same lines, I see all manner of predictions of Armageddon from asteroid strikes comet strikes, global warming, super volcanoes, new ice ages, global pandemics, super bugs, nuclear terrorists and whatever. Seattle, which of these things do you think COULD NOT happen? But as someone pointed out, none of these predictions come with an exact date attached to them. And most of them are not really "predictions" but rather possibilities, since in most cases scientists don't say they WILL happen, just that they COULD happen. Well, global warming is definitely happening, the debate is really over what's causing it. And nuclear terrorism isn't really a matter of science, it's more a matter of finance and theft. (Do you really think it's IMPOSSIBLE that a terrorist group could get a nuclear device? If so, I wish I could agree with you.) For that matter, I firmly believe that the world will end -- but not on a date predicted by a book, or an interpretation of a book. The last time I read about this, "science" seemed to be predicting that the Earth will be destroyed by the expanding Sun in about 5 billion years. I'll go with that.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I apologize for yet another quote from, ahem, the cinema, and this one is kind of lengthy, but this time it is directly relevant, so... who you gonna call? Dr. Peter Venkman: Hi, welcome back to "World of the Psychic," I'm Peter Venkman. I'm chatting with my guest, author, lecturer and psychic, Milton Anglund. Milt, your new book is called "The End of the World." Now can you tell us when it's going to be or do we have to buy the book? Milton Auglund: Well I predict that the world will end at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve. Dr. Peter Venkman: This year? Milton Auglund: MmHmm. Dr. Peter Venkman: Well that's cutting it a little bit close, isn't it? I mean, just from a sales point of view, I mean your book is just coming out, you're not gonna see any paperback sales for at least a year. It'll be at least another year before you know whether you've got that mini-series or movie of the week kind of possibilities. I mean just Devil's Advocate Milty! I mean shouldn't you have said: Hey the worlds going to end in 1992! Or better yet 1994! Milton Auglund: This is not just some money-making scheme! Alright! I have a strong psychic belief that the world will end on New Year's Eve. [begins to cry] Dr. Peter Venkman: Well, for your sake, I hope you're right. Okay. But I think my other guest may disagree with you. Elaine, now you had another date in mind? Elaine: According to my source, the end of the world will be on February 14, in the year 2016. Dr. Peter Venkman: Valentine's Day. Bummer. Where did you get your date, Elaine? Elaine: I received this information from an alien. As I told my husband, it was in the Paramus Holiday Inn, I was having a drink at the bar, alone, and this alien approached me. He started talking to me. He bought me a drink, and then I think he must have used some kind of a ray or a mind control device because he forced me to follow him to his room and that's where he told me about the end of the world. Dr. Peter Venkman: So your alien had a room at the Holiday Inn, Paramus. Elaine: It might have been a room on the spacecraft made up to look like a room in the Holiday Inn. I can't be sure about that, Peter. Does this constitute "sneering"?

qwazse said: Bottom line, unless spouses are abusive or promiscuous (bringing violence or disease into the family), divorce hurts kids. Did the study draw that distinction, or is that you drawing the distinction? My impression is that divorce hurts kids regardless of the cause of the marital difficulties, but the problem is that I don't think that this study has really "factored out" the problems that led to the divorce in the first place. In other words, I don't think it shows that a child in a given situation will be better or worse off if the parents stay together and continue arguing, not talking to each other, etc. Or to put it yet another way, I think we have a "cause and effect" problem here -- are the children suffering solely because of the divorce, or also because of the problems that caused the divorce? My experience in observing other people is that it is probably both.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

SeattlePioneer, what kind of "behavior" are you talking about as being "legitimized"? In the first paragraph of your post you seem to be talking about child abuse, although you don't say so. Is that the "behavior" you are talking about? That is never going to be "legitimized." As Cambridgeskip points out, some people will do things they should not, regardless of sexual orientation. There have been a number of stories in this forum over the years about heterosexual Scout leaders who acted inappropriately. If a male and female Scouter somewhere decide to cheat on their respective spouses and have an affair with each other, does that mean that heterosexuals who behave properly (which includes me, and I assume it also includes you) should be banned from Scouting? There wouldn't be anybody left.

And as I exit the thread after posting that, the ad on the right of the screen has the smiling face of Ellen DeGeneres. Oh wait, she's there again right now! Too funny.

Chug, you got it. Yes, SOME people here do think that. And I am sure that it does happen on very rare occasions, if only because anything that the human mind can conceive of happens at least occasionally. But on the whole, no I do not think it happens very often. What I wonder about is this: What percentage of "gay teenagers" (many of whom are, as Chug points out, just in the process of realizing what their orientation is) even tell anyone about it? I have no statistics on the subject, but I do have an educated guess. At the age of say, 13 or 14, the number is probably very, very, very small. Not only would they not make an "advance" on anyone, they wouldn't even tell anyone. At the age of 17 the percentage of those who would talk about it is probably higher. And I am not talking about girls now (among whom I also suspect the percentage is higher at each age group.) I am talking about boys. I really don't think many of them are going to go around announcing it, especially when they aren't really sure yet themselves. Let's try to remember that the BSA policy on "avowed homosexuals" is really primarily about adult leaders. I don't think the BSA itself is really sure how to deal with openly gay Scouts, and I doubt the subject presents itself very often.

As a famous man once said: "Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly folow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a "scientific method". Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance!" "Naaaaaahhh!"

Now I am just kidding but it seems to follow the sentiment of many unit scouters towards the position resulting in rapid turnovers in many councils due to the hostility and thanklessness of the job. Hostility by commissioners or hostility to commissioners?

shortridge, I think that would have been under "Open Discussion - Program." It's just down the hall.

Oh, I based "2008" on what Beavah said. But here it is: http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Jun11ASRFeature.pdf It is from the June 2011 edition of the American Sociological Review. It looks very scientific with a lot of equations and stuff, so I am going to let those of you who read that sort of thing read it and tell the rest of us what it really says. I did, however, read the last sentence: "These observations preclude unwarranted generalization of the current results and call for an extension of the analytic framework to improve scholarly understanding of divorce and the development of affected children." It sounds like something a scientist might say. As opposed to someone writing an article about an article on "Yahoo news", who did exactly what the article author said NOT to do, draw unwarranted generalizations. Not to mention, I doubt there is anything about "sin" in the article.

The nominee himself wrote an interesting and sometimes humorous essay in the New York Times today, explaining his withdrawal and criticizing the system (much as Beavah does.) It is entitled "When a Nobel Prize Isn't Enough." Among other things, he says he is satisfied to go back to teaching at MIT. (I just mentioned that in case anyone thought he taught somewhere that has a good reputation.) Evidently Senator Shelby (Alabama) didn't think Dr. Diamond's Nobel Prize was in the right sub-sub-specialty of economics. Here is a link to the article but it might tell you you have to pay something: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06diamond.html?_r=1&hp I also looked at Peter Diamond's article on Wikipedia and found this sentence interesting: "Ben Bernanke, the current Chairman of the Fed, was once a student of Diamond." Think about THAT for a minute. He taught the current Fed chairman -- in fact he was one of the reviewers of Bernanke's doctoral dissertation -- but he doesn't have the "right experience" to serve under Bernanke at the Fed. Priceless.

Yes Beavah, that would make more sense. Of course it raises a new question, why is this person writing a news article (you call it a blog but it looks a little more official than that) about a study that was published three years ago? It's not exactly news. And if it is a blog, it's not exactly "at the speed of the Internet." And as I said before, it makes one wonder what else in the article is incorrect.

skeptic, it's even worse than that. If the children being studied "entered kindergarten in 2008" as the article says, and assuming these are kids with regular school years, they would be finishing SECOND grade right around now. To be finishing fifth grade now they would have started kindergarten in 2005. So something is incorrect somewhere. It may be that the newspaper article is incorrect, but then one wonders what else they got wrong. On the subject at hand, there is no doubt that divorce is difficult for children. Some people, by making their breakup as acrimonious as possible, make it even tougher on their children than it needs to be. But growing up with parents who are constantly at war with each other is no good either. Some divorces need to happen. Some divorces that happen should not happen. But this study does not seem to take any of that into account. All it tells us is that, all other things being equal, kids whose parents are divorced, in general, have more problems than kids whose parents are together. I already knew that. It does not tell us about the "morality" of getting divorced, or staying together, in any particular case.

jrush says: IIRC the BSA also requires that the JASM follow all BSA policies regarding driving, 2-deep leadership, sleeping quarters, etc. I am not sure what you mean by "follow." You mean, follow as an adult? The JASM is still a youth member so for youth protection and safety purposes they are still considered a youth. (Or at least I have never seen anything to the contrary.) Or did you mean something else? On the other hand, to whoever referred to JASM's as being in a patrol... I don't think they are supposed to be in a patrol. For THAT purpose they are treated as an adult leader. (Or at least, not a regular patrol. I am not sure whether a JASM can be in a Venture Patrol (as opposed to a Venture Crew, in which capacity they are acting as a crew member, not a troop member.))

eisely says: I went to a Jewish wedding a few years ago. Both bride and groom were Jewish. Lobster was served at the rehearsal dinner. Hmmmm. That's not unusual. Your hosts were most likely followers of Reform Judaism. Generally Reform Jews do not "keep Kosher" though some will follow parts of the Kosher laws. I have read that a majority of American Jews do not follow the Kosher laws at all. When I was growing up (in a Reform Jewish family) we would at times have bacon, or shrimp, or cheeseburgers (not Kosher because of the mixing of meat and dairy) but we never had lobster, ham or pork chops. I suspect we did not have lobster because my parents were trying to save money, and having not grown up with it themselves, maybe they never developed a taste for it. I once asked my father why we never had pork chops, and found out there was really no religious or traditional reason for it; when he was in the Army, he had been fed so many pork chops that he never wanted to see one again in his life. So my mother never made pork chops for dinner; there was no more spiritual reason for it than that. The first pork chop I ever had was at the home of a non-Jewish girlfriend who I later married. (That was also where I had venison for the first time, but that's a different story.) Similarly, my brother's household is all-Jewish but they don't keep Kosher at all. Maybe they even have pork chops, I don't know. At their wedding there was no concern for keeping Kosher. And yet at the wedding of one of my cousins, who married a Conservative rabbinical student, there would not have been a lobster or a shrimp or a piece of bacon or anything else non-Kosher anywhere in the vicinity. Orthodox and Conservative Jews believe God has commanded us not to eat these foods and to keep certain foods away from each other. The rest of us do not. (The one or two other active Jewish posters here can correct me if I am not quite right on the differences between the different movements.)

Well said BDPT.

Forget five months, this guy's 15 minutes are up. I hope.

Calico says: I agree with your post in general (as usual) but I do not think I agree with your last paragraph. If it is done correctly, the First Class First Year emphasis can help retention, not hurt it. Doing it correctly means that the boys are not in lockstep to get these ranks completed in 12 (or more realistically 18, though I have seen a couple make 1C in 7 or 8) months, but rather that the program is designed to give them the opportunity to do so. If the program is a good one, they'll be learning knots and setting up tents and practicing CPR and other fun stuff that is not "classroom work", and along the way they'll be passing requirements. Admittedly there are a few requirements that do seem a bit homework-y, but I don't think they are overly burdensome. The "opportunity" part also means they have to "be there", and not miss half the meetings and two-thirds of the camping trips due to sporting events and other activities and then expect to be advancing along with everybody else. As I have said in the past, I think the single biggest problem with retention is sports, which is why the BSA has tried (not very successfully) to build sports into its own program in various ways. And then there's this: If I was told that my first year of Summer Camp that I would have to go to the camp's T-2-1 program instead of taking some merit badges I thought would be interesting, I'd quit. Thinking back to "my day", first-year campers almost never did merit badges. I believe you had to be 2C to work on merit badges at all. To tell you the truth, I am not sure what I did as a first-year camper. I do not think there was an organized program. We probably went swimming and did archery, etc. In the summer camp my son attended for most of his years as a Scout, things were a lot more structured. I think the only time he got to do archery was when he earned the Archery Merit Badge. (Not as a first-year camper though.)

qwasze, This thread is about what Christians believe, which is why I have not weighed in, since it's really none of my business. However, I see you mentioned members of another religion (your "buddies") and what they think about what Christians believe. I think we can all assume that regardless of what Christians may believe about certain core concepts (like resurrection), people who are definitely not Christians are not going to share those beliefs. So whether its Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Bahai, Wicca, Great Plains Native American spiritualism, the Force, or whatever else, I don't think we need to be singling out anybody in particular. Ok?

Trevorum, so in other words if you believe those pesky scientists who say the Earth is actually about 4.5 billion years old, it tends to throw the numbers off just a bit. But wait, shouldn't that mean Judgment Day occurred almost (about) 4.5 billion years ago? Of course, then the New Testament (which is the source of the whole idea) never would have been written. Oh no. I feel like I am watching a "time travel" episode of Star Trek. Or as Allen Sherman sang about 50 years ago, when Ben Casey meets Kildare, that's called a paradox...

I wonder if anyone was bold enough to ask Camping why he got left behind, too? I am sure the media tried, but from what I have read, he "could not be reached for comment." Which does make one go hmmm... Maybe if they do catch up with him, he'll say it isn't really him...

What position do you hold? (Or plan to hold?) The first thing you should probably do is take Youth Protection training online. That is now required for registration for any position and even assuming you had it in the past, your certification would be out of date.

I must have missed this thread. I agree with TwoCubDad and others, this is not a good thing, not well-thought-out and could cause more problems than it solves. I do not use Facebook or any other "social media" sites, and really don't know much about them. But I do know about email, I have been using it for 20 years. In my role as troop advancement coordinator, I have been using email to communicate with the boys about the scheduling of BOR's. I have actually encouraged them to email me when they are ready for a BOR (assuming they don't see me at a troop meeting) so that I can set up the BOR. Based on what I see in this "policy", them emailing me is probably ok; it is my response that is the issue. When I reply to the Scouts' email, I have NOT been copying the parents. I do not necessarily know the parents' email address and even if I look at a recent "announcement" email that has everybody's email address on it, not everybody's email address indicates their real name. (I'll see names like, just to make one up, "FireCoGuy," which could describe about 10 different adults in our troop.) Depending on what I am saying back to the Scout, I MAY cc the other members of the committee who I want to alert about the BOR, but not always. If the message from the Scout indicates that he has not yet finished his requirements but wants to schedule a BOR, I do not necessarily need to copy the committee members on my response. But I guess I will now make sure I email some other adult, even if there really isn't a need to do so.

I am sure there are situations where it works, but I think it is something that should be avoided if possible. The unit committee is supposed to be making sure the unit leader is doing his/her job properly, so if the head of the committee is married to the unit leader, that creates an obvious issue.