skeptic

Merlyn:

Of course you are correct; but you see, that "awful majority" sometimes hopes that rational responses will actually occur, rather than selfish ones.

Please do not wear yourself out regurgitating your never changing "facts" and so on. We all know how you feel.

Or, maybe the people in the school simply hoped the PC stuff would not be an issue, and the 99% positive element of the program could happen. They, perhaps weighed the positives and negative(s, then felt the positives "far" out weighed the negatives; and a large group of parents wanted it. Oh, I am sorry, we need to ignore that group, as they just want what they see as "best" for "their" kids.

In yesterday's paper there was an interesting article about Jefferson and his "view of God". As has been noted, he was a "Deist", and as such very skeptical about many elements of religion. Still he believed that Jesus was real, and that his very basic tenets were worthwhile.

Early in the 19th century, Jefferson basically cut and pasted what he considered to be the most relevant parts of the New Testament and Christ's teachings. He called this "wee little book" The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazereth. In a letter sent to John Adams from Monticello in 1813 he calls this 46 page book "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man".

Jefferson is finally quoted as saying; "Say nothing of my religion. It is known to myself and my God alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one".

On-line reference for the bible is "

For some posters, everything is either black or white. No nuance or room for wiggle allowed. And, if it was stated once, even if since has been motified or clarified in some manner, it matters not. The statement was made; so it is fact and cannot be questioned except in a negative way. No sense in arguing with a wall.

You know, I often have wondered if we took the time to design, then spent the money wasted on "disaster after-the-fact" on its completion, why they could not build canals or underground spillways away from the large rivers that would take the water to areas that could use it. If we can bring water from Northern to Southern California via an aquaduct, why not from Missouri to say Georgia, with stops along the way to replenish aquafirs? Probably all kinds of challenges, but just seems that we have so much water going where we don't want it, but there are areas that could use it. But, I am not an engineer. But, you would think that the cost eventually would be outweighed by the benefits.

http://view.email.scoutstuff.org/?j=fe5c1576776102747411&m=fef616777c6304&ls=fdf811717d67057a70167577&SRC=ET&ET_CID=history070108&Page=View+as+a+Web+Page&ET_RID={c8e9df99-0c98-4560-a937-2abcf2a91529}

Personally, while this looks like possibly a great item; it is truly way over the top. I am afraid it supports some of the critics who feel National has lost sight of some of the basic foundations of our movement. Even with the items indicated, this is a rip off, in my opinion. I am truly disappointed, and have sent a message to them indicating such. Not that it will likely get any response or consideration. On top of the overpriced Eagle book, this is very sad.

deleted, due to messed up html and appearance. Will try again without link and html.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Oh come on Mr. Boyce; that would be using "common sense". Have you forgotten that it is no longer in vogue?

Frankly, based on the info given, the young man's project was more than required, and overall very successful. It is truly a shame that public officials, more often than known, have power trips at the expense of well meaning or even diligent efforts of volunteers and community groups.

In our own area, I have seen projects demeaned and destroyed by "authorities", after approvals and glowing reports initially. The excuse often is that they were not safe; yet, rather than take what appeared to be minor remediation to fix the safety issues, they simply destroyed them.

It would not surprise me to find that this is more common than we would like to think.

Tried to intur a "dead horse" cartoon; won't work. Sorry.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Yep, the Ordeal process is a rubber stamp pretty much. Because there were occasional instances of "black-balling" in earlier days, and a few candidates felt they were treated unfairly over the years, the rules were changed. Now, there is very little, if any accountability if the Ordeal vows are broken. Just one more instance of taking the glow off the campfire and over doing the challenge to keep it fair, but meaningful.

Still, most candidates seem to try to uphold the honor of the moment; and a few seem to actually "get" it. Work with what we have, and hope we can push forward.

With the newest election (?) procedure, an "eligilbe" scout has to "really be unpopular" to still not be chosen. But, the SM also has the ability to not allow the bully or other unqualified scout to stand for the election (?). There still is a "Scout Spirit" element, and that is up to the leader to determine.

So, we come back to the continuing question. Why, if the leader is doing his job, do we have candidates for ranks or honors who everyone thinks do not have "Scout Spirit", do not set the example expected?

Scoutmasters need to take their job and its sometimes difficult decisions seriously. Sometimes, that hard decision to not allow a scout to advance at "this time", or to be on the O.A. election list, may be the wake up call necessary. Scouts need to understand that just going through the motions when someone is looking, and doing the minimum paper requirement does not guarantee their being "honored". That is not how the "real world" works.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Reminds me of an episode years ago at the San Diego Zoo during a spring break outing. I dropped kids off with another leader, then went my own way, as had been there too many times. That afternoon, when I returned to pick them up, I am greeted with two boys telling me "scouts ?/?" are in security, and you need to go there. Seems they thought it would be cool to spit out of the "skyway" cable car. Was anyone hurt? No. Was it wrong? Yes. Did we all learn something? Hopefully. But, just the looks on their faces when I sprang them was enough, along with the constant razzing by the others. We did have a short discussion aside from the others, and they made a public apology to the rest of the group; but that was all I felt necessary.

Guys; isn't this horse dead enough for you? Obduracy is certainly in abundance with this group. Time to shut it down, IMHO.

Also, other than the immediate recipient of survice rendered, hardly anyone even notices scout service, as it does not deserve publication or airing in most news sources. For two years in a row now, I have taken the time to write and submit a synopsis of the past year's Eagle crop, and their total service; that includes the number of Eagles, number of hours (rounded), and a general listing of the various types of public and private entities to whom the service was rendered, such as 35 public schools, 38 churches, and so on. Other than it being posted on the paper website (which you can do yourself) it has not shown up in the paper. This event is attended by numerous county "names", recognizes an adult Eagle with a special award, and is held at a presidential library. Yet, not a word in the press.

But, I noticed once again yesterday, a short piece on a teen south of us who committed a felony; the headline led with "Eagle Scout". What can you say?

Actually, Southern California already is in the Pacific (or on it)to the west of the San Andreas fault. The fault is the break point of the continental and Pacific plates. As such, the pressure northward and under to the east, acting in union, split off the section on the west and it is very slowly creeping northward. At some point, should the earth and U.S. survive that long,(yah, not likely), those of us west of the fault in the L.A. area will be saying hi to Berkley, while San Francisco will have moved to the vicinity of the Oregon, Washington border (you think Oregonians and Washintonians are upset now by the California interlopers; lol).

So, there we have it. Of course, in that period of time, anything could change, including all of us becoming another Atlantis situation. Who knows.

By 11+ it is time for children to have begun to not need mommy and daddy constantly. A week at camp, without direct home contact, is generally a very positive point of growth in their self image and confidence. We should discourage as much of this as possible, in my opinion. Letters or simply cards should be enough, in most cases. If there really is a need, contact should be done with an adult present. Use of the pay phone in some camps actually requires an adult be with in order to encourage counseling of "little Johnny" prior to his crying on the phone.

Of course, I am an old guy who was a latch-key kid in the 50's and responsible for family dinner prep by age 10, ready to serve (or close) by the time dad and mom got home in the (1)family car. Neighbors watched us, but unless we got really out of order, we did not hear much from them; and of course we played in the front and back yards on the two or three blocks in our area, as well as in the street. Still, somehow we survived and were far more self reliant at an early age than many kids today.

Aside from a poor economy which makes it difficult to move out, way too many teens get out of high school with absolutely no ability to fend for themselves. Much of this can be directly attributed to the overly protective attitudes of many parents, and lack of home bred responsible behavior.

JMHO

No electronics in camp; if caught with, they become mine until end of camp and return. They may use in the vehicles, but ask them not to be gadflys even then. Most barely use them, other than to play games. In camp they are encouraged to listen to nature and each other.

At summer camp the past few years though, we have had a parent who brings his guitars, including a small amp; they are allowed to jam with him as time allows away from other responsibilities, usually in the evening. If scouts have other things to do, he simply does not get it out.

Non-electric guitars are welcome on other outings, but seldom are taken due to size and weight. Drive-in is another story.

     You know folks, a lot of you are making this out to be some kind of huge conspiracy, or simply playing the "fear" card. Reality is that this requirement, while perhaps not absolutely necessary, is highly unlikely to contribute to identity theft; and frankly, most of you have very likely given out more than enough information somewhere else should someone really want to make you a victim.

     If you have read some of the past nightmares within the BSA in regard to these issues, you know that there have been numerous individuals who were on record in one state and simply moved to another, sometimes more than once. If this procedure roots out even one individual hiding in the shadows, it has done its job. And, as someone already noted, every protective measure we can put in place serves to make the predators less likely to choose BSA as their harvesting locale. 

     I, for one, will do whatever is necessary to reinforce the youth protection umbrella. If they want my fingerprints, they can have them. But, I also will continue to monitor credit reports and be vigilent for my own protection. If it happens, I am fairly confident it will have come from some other source than BSA.

Ah Merlyn; my "invisible friend" shows up regularly. You might recognize he/she in a sunset, or the power of a lightning bolt, or perhaps the smile of a tiny child. On the other hand, probably not, as you do not appear to see these types of things as anything beyond ourselves. It is sad to me that some people seem to have such arid souls.

But, I believe that you will have one more chance at the time that you "cross the bar". Reality will be obvious; but you will still have "free will", and can choose to deny one last time.

Good luck.

Interesting discussion re: West and GBB. While West was certainly a difficult person in many respects, he also accomplished a lot to put the early program on sound footing. All of the "founders" had their faults, but they appear to have had the goal of giving a viable and efficient program to the youth of the period. We can cast stones at Boyce for pretty much disappearing after the first few months, and perhaps not completing his promised financial support. Reports are that Beard could be surly and belligerant at times. Seton appears to have had ego issues. And of course, even B.P.'s direction was not universally followed or accepted; and there are many unknowns about him, as well as Olave. But, would we even still exist without all of their early efforts?

Possibly we would have a better, certainly different group if some of the prominent people involved at the start who withdrew had stayed the course. We need to look back with respect, but also recognize the shortcomings and try to learn from their mistakes.

scoutingagain;

Here in SC, those big crew cabs and similar vehicles seem to not be doing too much slowing down, if my occasional freeway jaunt is any indication. I have a new Fit, and I cruise at 65-70, depending on the flow. Meanwhile, I get passed constantly by SUV's and monster trucks. Guess they have really good fuel resources. Or, they are simply not aware of anything beyond their immediate gratification.

Oh well, I can still barely fill up an empty tank on $40; lol, what else can you do?

Merlyn;

Rights are only viable when they do not infringe on those of others. When they do, they are license. Neither form should be allowed if it cannot be done equibly. Again, the intent, to stop any form of bullying, is commendible; but since it has become predominently focussed on one specific group, and is spear-headed by non-student advocates, it is no longer something that should occur.

By looking the other way and tacitly approving an activity, the school, a symbol of authority, becomes implicit in the activity. And, when some educators express their point of view during this event, they are over stepping their place, as this is a "public school". They do not have the right to directly or indirectly support certain PC points of view, since, as you have noted more than once, they are authority figures.

My point is on the table; but I realize that you will evade it, or trivialize it, because only your perspective is important or viable. I will let you argue with someone else now. Have fun.

Simply allowing the groups to sponsor the event on campus is tacit approval of the intent. Allowing special assemblies requires school officials to approve the activity.

The real point is not that encouraging less bullying and ill treatment of students for any reason isn't a good thing; but the methods and focus are not consistent with that. They specifically are focussed on a specific group of individuals; and non-school advocates are directly involved.

Merlyn; it is interesting that you admit it appears some students rights were violated. Yet, you are still unwilling to admit it is directly related to the approval, direct, or indirectly, by school officials.

The door swings both ways.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Well, here are a number of links related to this year's activity. While the supposed reason is to protest bullying in general, its focus is on the GSA and other related organizations' agendas. While they supposedly make it an optional activity on the schools, the fact that they are allowed to have assemblys and pass out literature is tacit approval by the schools involved. What is worse, at least in the cases shown below in Seatle and Sacramento, students and parents who protested were harassed and even punished; this is a violation of the their rights in favor of those of the "day of silence" participants. And, frankly, a large percentage of the students who are involved are simply using the event to avoid their studies and socialize.

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2291.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/eastsidenews/2004374870_dayofsilence26e.html

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/news.aspx?id=87161

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2236.html

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070426/27090_'Day_of_Silence'_Protesters_Defended_After_School_Suspensions.html(This message has been edited by skeptic)