skeptic

Yes, the swim thing can be a real sticking point. Over the years I have had a small number of boys who did not make it through them, and a few more who barely passed, but then could not deal with alternate badges for Eagle, usually because they were the only one doing them, and the drive was not there. Also have had a few who got past the early requirements, and then took advantage of the alternates on their own. I have also had a few instances where a parent really got vexed when I would not waive the swimming. To them, it was not fair to challenge a physically able boy to overcome a mental issue. Lost a few that way, but one or two of the boys understood better than their parents and dealt with it. Funny story with one of the almost non-swimmers. He never made it past first class, but stayed with us through high school, and then helped out while in JC. He is now a major in the army. But, he decided that since I swam the mile every summer at camp, very slowly with rest strokes, that he could too. But the only rest stroke he had mastered was the elementary back stroke. He swam the mile using nothing but the elementary; took him a bit over an hour. But the fact he did it was far more important than the patch, and probably contributed to his overall growth dramatically. One other thing that, at least here in the West, happens often on swim check day is the combination of often high altitude and cold water. Our local camp until recently never had a pool cover, and its water was always in the low 60's at best. Add 5700 feet elevation and scouts coming from sea level, and you have exhaustion and shock waiting to happen. I try to remind the boys that the test is not a race, and that they might use less tiring strokes the first day; but most either only know some poor variant of the crawl, or just want to prove they are the fastest. And some end up not finishing and having to come back the next day. They usually do not make the same mistake the next year. Enough of my wind.

Lisabob; Liked your post and perspective. Reminded me of 1959 when I told my parents I wanted to go to Colorado Springs. They said, what does that cost. Cost, for going from So Cal where I lived, for our contingent, was $450, plus $50 estimated uniform expense, and any spending money; so, at the time, about $550. My parents said, "Okay, we'll buy your uniforms". I went, and they only bought the uniforms, and drove me to training and the train station. The boys whose parents simply paid for it pretty much complained about everything, even then. They had no conception as to what it meant to "earn" their way. Those of us who did, seemed to get more out of it. Three weeks never to be forgotten; train from So Cal to Colorado via Arizona and New Mexico, Colorado Springs, AF Academy, Garden of the Gods, Jamboree, Cheyenne Frontier Days, Salt Lake City and its sites, Great Salt Lake, huge pit mine, San Francisco with China Town, tour, Gateway Park, and a stay in the Grand Hotel; and sleeping in berths, eating in dining cars, and watching sites from observation cars. In 85 I went as a leader, and it too was an experience, but totally different; shared with four scouts from my own troop, and my nephews from another council. No kids of my own. Now hope to be on staff; got the patch, but no position yet. Choose what is important for you, then do it.

Less than 48 hours in, and O'Reilly is already beating on him and moaning about how the country is under attack and going downhill fast. Anybody remember the talking heads?

Merlyn: You must be having a stroke right now, if you have been observing the inauguration. Invocations, benedictions, grace, Obama referring to the bible in his speech. Not quite what you hoped for so far, I guess.

Probably mostly due to the other activities inflexible policies. My experience has been that scouts who choose to participate in these, especially on the middle school level or higher, find themselves being told they will be dropped should they miss even one or two practices; and that is even when they add them in or change their schedules. As far as they are concerned, nothing else matters. It is really too bad that scouts are considered optional by the others, no matter what the activity. I have had scouts have to forgo almost every type of event at one time or another.

Eagledad; Guess what I am trying to say, or ask, is; Would the issue of unacceptable leadership example of Gays, as stated by National by the term "avowed", be better accepted if it was applied in a more generic sense, referring to other sources deemed to be poor examples, rather than only to "avowed Gays"? Does that make sense now?

While it is fun to poke fun, can someone perhaps comment seriously about this? The question is shouldn't the idea that "avowed" Gays are not suitable for leadership of youth possibly expand to include a broader base of others whose "avowed" life styles or beliefs become a hindrance or distraction? I cannot help but think that the reason, as has been pointed out by so many, that Gays have been in leadership, mostly without our knowledge or concern, is that they have not made it an issue; they have not flaunted it as "the way" to live, nor disrupted the programs with the interference of their choices. The same problem should possibly be addressed in a broader sense in regard to other amoral, illegal, or unhealthy examples displayed to the the youth. I truly wonder what the thoughts may be on this, or if the usual combatants are too shallow to address it.

For a while now, it has occurred to me that the context of "avowed" in the National Policy regarding Gay leaders is part of the problem. Not only does it leave a lot of room for interpretation; but, it also opens up the question of whether it would make more sense if it was not just applied to Gays, but also to drug users, alcoholics, "free love" idealist, blatant adulterers, and so on. It has been indirectly touched on by various people over the past year, but not really discussed. Any thoughts on this?

Yes, that was the instructions given in the 80's for us. Sorry I did not add that earlier.

In 1981, we elected them at the end of the course; it was an honor given by the patrol members to indicate who they felt was the best in their group. In our 21st Century course that I staffed as a guide, we did not have them do it. So, perhaps it is more of a local thing. My first course was the old one obviously, but it also was in a neighboring council. Surely there are other opinions and comments.

Yes, I would agree that it is related to the "you can't see me" idea on the web. In yesterday's paper, there is a good example here in S.C.. A young man in South Pasadena started a "no cussing" club, the goal to bring a bit more civility back to the everyday language we all speak and hear. He has a web site. Recently he has been inundated with all kinds of nastiness, not only on the site, but now to his home address which has been published by someone; porn magazines, litanies of four letter words, and now even death threats. The police have begun an investigation, due to the threats. What is wrong with people?

While I would not condone your reaction, the guy was not setting a very good example. What's more, he was wrong, according to the uniform guide. Palms can be worn on the knot, just like they are worn on the ribbon of the Eagle badge. Oh well.

Merlyn: No one has ever suggested that others have to associate with the BSA. But, for some reason, they want to try to force the BSA to associate with them. Why?

OGE; No, the documents do not indicate they refused to pay; only that they did not even actually attempt to use it, due to their inability to even think about dealing with the BSA. The comment regarding cost in other parts relates to the huge discrepancy the GS charge to non GS users. By the way, they also give precedence to GS for use, as do the other lease holders from what I understand. Of course, as the lease holder, that makes perfect sense. Whatever; nothing but the complete isolation of BSA will satisfy these people anyway.

Let me see. I will lease this land and pay for all the upkeep, any improvements I need for our intended use as a headquarters, swimming pool area, indoor and outdoor meeting area, and campsite. When it is not in use for our specific purposes, it will be open for use by outside groups as well, as long as they meet certain liability requirements. So, a facility for youth primarily is booked up by the group who actually runs and maintains it during the time when youth are most likely to use it. But, if it is not, others still can use it. Oh, but I want to use it when it is used by the group that runs and maintains it, but they are a heinous group that disagrees with my personal beliefs and life style, so I cannot be anywhere near them or their facility. So, I am harmed and should be allowed to use the facility under "my" terms. Oh, but I do not intend on maintaining it or allowing anyone connected with this awful group to be near me during my use. Oh, I also do not want to use any other part of this very large public area, as it is not maintained as well, or the persons who hold the leases want too much money. Makes total sense to me.

Ed; their feelings are hurt.

Well Merlyn, that is an interesting comment. Having read "all" the available documents, and having actually used Balboa and visited the area numerous times, I am fairly cognizant of what they say, how the area is used, and so on. I also have read numerous "legal" statements and opinions by qualified lawyers and judges who disagree with the judicial decisions made by the judges who ruled up to this point. The fact that the initial ruling was made by a single judge who refused to even consider any others' thoughts or submissions reflects the reality; that this is a PC decision that refuses to seriously consider any views from other legal minds that might reflect that there is error in the decision. So, here we are. The judicial machine moves glacially forward, with many cogs unwilling to get involved due to politics (most likely), and the youth and the public as a whole are left to bear the penalty. But, "IT IS YOUR RIGHT!!". You are correct on that.

If you read the legal documents, you will note comments regarding GS, as well as others. My understanding is there are time frames with GS usage having priority over public use. Of course, the GS have bent to the PC harassment and eliminated some of their traditional rules.

Merlyn; How do you feel about the fact the Girl Scouts having similar special treatment for their members at the neighboring camp? They take precedence over outside users during certain times. Should the lawsuit be expanded to include them as well? Perhaps also the other groups with similar leases who all have priority times for their groups?

Besides the Jambo, nothing I have seen; maybe simply surviving to then. In the red and rumors of issues with SE and camp selling. I try to stay out of the politics, but it is always there in the background. And sometimes it will directly affect us on the troop level.

Merlyn: I have no idea if you have ever actually seen either Mission Beach or Balboa Park; but if you have, you would know that the areas in question are only a very small part of the parks overall. So, if you are not able to use a particular area for a certain time frame, there are many other similar areas still accessible. If it is the equipment and facilities that are at issue, then, we come back to why you think BSA should pay for these items and their upkeep, supervise safety considerations, and so on, yet not have some type of relatively minor priority of use for their own groups. It has little or nothing to do with blocked off time in the summer keeping these individuals from using the park or beach. Again, if the facility is in use, then arrange another time or another place. It is not that difficult for reasonable people; but, as you note with your Shaw quote, unreasonable people are somehow more important. And we bemoan the state of the country, even as our supposedly unbiased and wise leaders and educators continue to bow to PC minorities and the "Me, Me" attitude. Rights are not license if you actually "read" the constitution with some sort of fairness to more than yourself. Most of our founders have likely polished their bones to a high luster by now watching some of the things that pass for balanced interpretation. (Of course that means nothing to you, since you do not believe in God). Very little, if anything, has changed from you over the past year or more that I can see. When someone challenges you with a legitimate question or statement that would require a possible shift in your view, you simply ignore it and throw out the same PC fodder. I keep waiting for you to actually look beyond your blinders and admit that there are areas where you may have room for flexibility or compromise for the better good. It is really rather sad to see this from someone who seems on many levels to be well read and intelligent.

ssscout: The limiting factor for some is the BSA; they are a terrible and malicious organization that should be ostracized and have any privileges offered to others by the government, directly or indirectly, taken from them or not offered to begin. Merlyn has already admitted that the rights of his PC crusade (dare I use that word in relation to him?) take precedence to any logical or balanced decision.

Actually, the plaintiffs have gotten a favorable ruling from one judge whose logic defies the word. And, if somehow, this finally goes in the favor of the plaintiffs when it reaches the high court, then many other similar arrangements will have to go by the wayside at even further detriment to the public good. But, the PC will have won their egocentric "right". Meanwhile, you still cannot give me an answer to my question as to why all this effort and money cannot be used for the benefit of others, rather than to attack those that actually do. I really do not expect an answer, as I am sure you have none; only an excuse or egocentric response.

Merlyn; Why shouldn't they, since the scouts have been there and developed everything. If someone else wants a similar deal, put it on unused land. There is plenty there that could benefit from it. But, then that would require someone to come up with the money to develop it. Based on the development there in Balboa and on the beach, that would be hundreds of millions of dollars. The scouts put the money into it; why should they not continue to have the use? If others want to do something similar, then let them develop it on separate locations, rather than whine that they were not offered the same site at the same deal. If they want the deal on the same sites, then they should reimburse the scouts for all money spent, adjusted to today's dollar value, since scouts have been in Balboa since the 20's. The real question is why these litigious individuals don't simply use their resources to develop programs for use that fit their needs, rather than waste them on attacking groups with whom they disagree. Because they really do not care about others, only their own egocentric desires?? Try and give a rational and inclusive answer if you can. (Pulling chain hard!!!)(This message has been edited by skeptic)(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Okay, here is a possible resolution to this whole affair. Since in Mission Park on the beach, and in Balboa Park next to the zoo and so on, there are many acres of untended land, the city can give similar leases to a group who wishes to offer a similar program on the beach, and similar facilities in Balboa. They then can set their own requirements which would be inclusive of anyone and everyone (except for BSA groups, since they already have "their" space), no matter what their beliefs. Then they can put their own money into the development of the areas, and the regular upkeep so that they are safe and utile. Certainly in Balboa, this would be a great boon, as their are many areas of the park that are terribly overgrown and unsafe, since the city does not have the funds or ability to take proper care. Of course, we all know that if the areas in the suits were not already developed and useful, they would have no interest to the litigants, even if they actually applied to use them. And, if they were run down and not useful, the city would not have renewed the leases in the first place. So, Merlyn, take up the campaign. Maybe the ACLU can put some of their own money into the plan, along with the many wealthy, mistreated members of the Gay, atheist, and agnostic communities.