skeptic

Well, let''s try rewriting the question.

Is it just me, or do others wonder why we find ourselves constantly questioning things, that when reviewed, have simple, "Common Sense", answers?

Guess I need to either figure out how to edit in this forum, or simply do outside, then cut and paste. Sorry about the poor original entry.

Is it just me, or do find ourselves constantly questioning things that when reviewed have simple, "Common Sense", answers? Many of the issues that appear in these forums, and in the media in general, seem to me to fly in the face of logic in many cases.

Along with this is the inability or unwillingness to make a decision on our own part based on basic review of material already available on which to base our decision. Why are we so afraid to do what "seems" right based on the guidelines in place. Why are there so many attempts to skew the meanings of straightforward logic?

Is it just me, or have many people become too busy, or lazy, to make sincere effort to find answers and solutions to everyday challenges?

Skeptical ramblings of a jaded betweener (not sure what I am considered having been born in 1944; not quite the boomer period).

Am I simply getting too old to understand?

(perhaps should be under politics, but not sure)

Here is my take on the two. The traditional program is dependent on the sponsoring institution, the group that actually "owns" the unit. As such, it is under the auspices of the COR, as directed by his church, club, or whatever. The traditional foundation of BSA fits these institutions' needs, or they would not choose to use the program. They know up front the expectations of the BSA within this part of the organization.

LFL is designed specifically for community based outreach which is focussed through government oversight of one sort or another. While it strives to impart certain elements of traditional scouting, it must be able to accomodate a far broader membership pool. And, since government related programs usually are strictured by PC ordinances, the program must allow for this, or it simply will not happen.

Is it right to count the membership in LFL as part of the overall stats? Personally, I question that. Otherwise, I can see having two elements because it serves two distinct groups. I would however, really like National to let the CO determine leadership in their unit. From my observations and occasional probing, few would survive long if certain individuals were to become leaders. So any perceived problem would soon work itself out. But most CO's choose the program specifically because it still has a back bone.

JMHO

This last post made me remininse about my days in scouts as a youth. Our favorite game was British Bulldog. While it could get pretty rough on occasion, there was seldom anything more than an occasional bruise. We had a rule for bigger kids that required them to quick walk rather than run, so as to ease the of weight in motion at full throttle. The scout caught had to be completely off the ground for three BB's said outloud. I still remember laughing uncontrolably as a 15 or 16 year old under attack from a half dozen smaller boys. I would keep getting one limb to touch the floor, or it would be my butt. They would finally all control the limbs, then more than once, station another beneath me to keep the bottom from dragging. Now, I have trouble controlling the boys at times; and for the moment have had to ban the game. We also have to watch really close when they play dodge ball, as some boys seem to become way too aggressive.

Still, taking all "rough and tumble" out of the games is overkill, in my opinion. But I do see a differnce in the boys response to following rules and a tendency toward over aggressive behaviour. I perceive this as a general reflection on our society and many of the examples seen in the sports world.

Another opportunity to try to help them learn moderation and awareness of the total group, as well as following the rules. Requires a bit more supervision than before, but we do still play the games, once they have had time to think about why it has been taken away for a while.

Sorry about the odd extra formatting. I tried to set off the part from the National related website by putting it in html; but looks as if some of the coding came with it somehow. Hope all can read it.

"It isn't so!" It is so? According to the local executive, LFL is a completely separate program, but is administered through the BSA. United Way generally appears to be willing to include it in their funding when they will not include the traditional program. If you look it up, it has the Irving address, but is not listed directly under the National Council. But they seem to include the membership as part of their stats; so you decide.

Learning for Life offers seven programs designed to support schools and community-based organizations in their efforts to prepare youth to successfully handle the complexities of contemporary society and to enhance their self-confidence, motivation, and self-esteem. The seven programs focus on character development and career education. Learning for Life programs help youth develop social and life skills, assist in character and career development, and help youth formulate positive personal values. It prepares youth to make ethical decisions that will help them achieve their full potential.

Learning for Life programs are delivered in two methods:

       Instructional setting that utilize curriculum for grade K-12 as well as a component for Special Needs.

o      Seekers (K-grade 2)

o      Discoverers (grades 3 and 4)

o      Challengers (grades 5-6)

o      Champions (special needs)

o      Builders (7th and 8th Grade)

o      Navigators (High school grades)

       Work site based program (Exploring) that give high school aged youth hands on career experiences.

o      Exploring

LFL has had different membership requirements since its inception, mainly to stay within the schools. The change Explorers to LFL was done specifically to allow government sponsored posts, such as police and fire, to retain their sponsorships. They do not have the same leadership requirements and therefore can slide by the PC flags that were set to destroy them.

So, I guess we can say they buckled; or we can say that they have two separate programs run by one umbrella organization.

Oh, the boy who followed through was also reinstated in the OA a year and a half later.

My take on this is that council may have felt that the unit's response was inadequate for some reason. We had a similar, but not drug related, episode a number of years ago. Our SPL and ASPL were sent home from an OA event due to theft of a large amount of cds. Calling the police was considered, but since one of the staffers was off duty police, they decided to hold off and simply contact the troop and see how we approached it.

I received a call from the camp personally to let me know the situation. One of the boy's father came to get them in the middle of the night, but when they got home, that boy called me very early that morning to let me know his side, and apologize. My response was to contact the committee for an immediate BOR the next night. I spoke to both boys and told them they were to be there, in complete uniform. When they both were there the next evening, I took them aside and let them know how I felt, and my opinion on how they had let down themselves, families, the troop, and me. I then unceremoniously cut the leadership patches off their shirts before they went before the board. They met with the board briefly together, then they interviewed each separately. While I had to meet with the committee first to clarify details, I was not in the room for the review. Their decision was NOT to expell the boys; but it was a minimum six month freeze of all advancement, very specific strictures on activities (basically nothing fun, only service related), a magnifying glass on their actions, specific approved personal community service of 50 hours, and letters of apology to the youth from whom they stole, the OA leadership, and their parents. They had to bring me the letters for review. Once I read them, discussed their content, asked for emphasis on certain things, they rewrote them on the computer or type writer and submitted them for final approval. They finally signed them, and they were sent. They knew that I would be checking to make sure they actually were mailed. They also each had to give a short presentation to the troop about the importance and meaning of the Oath and Law. These decisions were relayed to the boys and their parents in separate meetings that night.

Frankly, the council seemed pleased, but surprised at the troop's response. I think that if they had not felt the troop was dealing properly, they very well would have expelled them from the program. They did withdraw their OA membership for a year, and would consider reinstatement only if all the troop committee requirements were met.

One set of parents immediately started making excuses, and was luke warm at best in helping their son with the follow through. Ironically, he was obviously the ringleader of the episode. His letters took him weeks to complete, and they were barely acceptable even then. He never did the service, was contentious when challenged at the troop level, and never did the troop presentation. He ended up dropping out, dropping out of high school, doing serious drugs and alcohol, got arrested, and spent time in jail just past his 18th birthday. The other boy had his letters done within a week with obvious contrition showing, finished his service within two months, and fulfilled all the other requirements beyond expectation. When this all began, he was just coming up for Life. At the end of the six months, the BOR met with him, and discussed the entire episode and what he might have learned. They felt unanimously that he had surpassed the intent of the probation, and approved his rank. He ended up making Eagle, just short of his 18th birthday. As an aside, his school work also improved during this period, and he found a part time job. He personally brought up the situation at his Eagle BOR, and they were impressed by his sincerity and response to the whole thing.

Sorry this is so long, but it seems that much depends on how the unit responds to things, and how serious they take it. If the council people feel they are only giving a slap on the hand for something obviously so serious, then they may feel they need to respond more draconically.

Double speak is a wonderful skill, but it still does not answer the simple question. Of course I realize that you will never actually face the fact that you speak out of both sides of your mouth; it just depends on whether or not it something you want to push.

Sorry, it is a bit cruel of me, especially since I suggested that others quit baiting you. No more on this from me.

There is no doubt that there has been poor decisions made in this Idaho situation, assuming the details given are moderately accurate. But, it appears that at least some afterthought has focussed on this not happening again, if possible.

Personally, I would hope that perhaps National might consider keeping a very close eye on the Seatle area professional oversight; but hopefully the man has learned a valuable lesson and will be much more vigilent and err on the side of caution and youth protection.

Of course, what sort of confuses me here is that this seems to be something Merlyn finds indicative of BSA being generally negligent. Yet, all the reports indicate that, though slower than probably should have occurred, the procedures did work; and the consensus appears to come down on the side of BSA as still having one of the best protection programs possible for such a large organization.

What do you want Merlyn? Do you want BSA to filter out as many suspicious leader applicants as possible or only those that meet PC definitions? This individual had a propensity toward abuse, but had been deemed to have grown out of it and was not a threat. Obviously, that determination was inaccurate. Yet, you would have other individuals with possibly dangerous inclinations be allowed as leaders. Should not the erring on the side of safety extend to this as well?

Just wonder.

John:

I would surmise that a very large percentage of troops do not follow the National program for myriad reasons. If the boys plan the program, as is supposed to happen, then they will be far less likely to stay with the often "lame" (boys' description) program. The important thing is that the program is planned and involves scout related subjects that focus on the overall mission.

While I am never quite certain I know God, I am certain that I sense he/she regularly. There have been a few times when the sense was overwhelming, and in the "outing in scouting" environment, little doubt as I generally lie beneath the stars the weather permitting. I try to simply watch for falling or shooting stars, fighting to stay awake long enough to do so. But the still watching of a dark, infinite space reinforces the awe of "something greater" that cannot quite be described, only felt in my own quiet self.

Cowpies catch the wind better though, kind of like frizbees. But horse droppings, of the right consistency, are easier to throw accurately. Good luck.

The solution for the few who go on ad nauseum with no end in site. Everyone else can ignore or read for personal amusement or agravation.

And so we have moved the ricocheting comments to another board. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

This whole tangent is ridiculous. Ed, you seem to not understand that Merlyn will never agree with anything that you say, and he will continue to bait you with his inflamatory comments as long as you respond. On the other hand, at times it seems as if you too are baiting him, as he tends to rant to the extent it is almost comical at times. Eventually though, it just gets old.

Perhaps it is time to simply block each other so that neither of you will feel the need to be overboard at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Just MHO.

To me, the point is that there are a few individuals who feel that they have the license to provoke trouble over things that are really not worth worrying about. And, the fact that the PC environment that we live in bows to their threats and pettiness is simply sad. If our legal system would be changed to make foolish or nonsensical lawsuits cost the person bringing them, we would see far fewer threats by unreasonable or devious people working the system.

Please do not respond here to flame me, or do so privately either. I will not respond.

Glad to see someone else mention the "substitute" words. The past couple of years this has become a real problem as well. We have discussed the fact that a different version of an unacceptable word is the same as using it, as everyone pretty much understands that it is a substitute. It does not help that we are bombarded with constant bleeps on tv and radio programs, and even astericks in paper media.

Another element that really grates on me of late is the constant immediate response of "I'm sorry", when the error is brought to their attention. I find myself recently telling the group that saying you are sorry, then constantly repeating the error, indicates to me that you are really not sorry at all. I usually get another "I'm sorry".

Very frustrating; and it happens in the classroom a lot as well.

Yes, there are scouters in Congress, even some Eagles. And, I am afraid that some appear to have forgotten the meaning of the Oath and Law, based on their actions, or inactions in some cases.

Here in the South of California we had one State rep who is an Eagle, and he stepped down due to a major scandal. Just a couple years prior, he had been the featured speaker at an Eagle dinner. How sad.

But, there are some who "do their best" still, or at least I hope so. Just tend to be a bit suspicious now adays I am afraid.

John-KC;

I like your comment about exercising our right to vote. Unfortunately, choosing he best candidate is a lose, lose situation in too many instances. It comes down to choosing the lesser of two poor choices. And integrity in politics seems to be almost extinct in my observation.

Another reason to try to keep the values and citizenship elements in the scouting program.

The anecdote about the world jambo reminded me of other changes in our BSA activities. At the occasion of my troops 80th anniversary, I received a few photos in the mail from the early 40's. They were sent by a 1945 Eagle, a salt of the earth man who still gives to the program in actual service at the camp. One of the photos was of a group of staffers from circa 1943 in the Sierras after camp was closed. As I pulled this 8 1/2 by 11 bw photo out, I began to see naked limbs of teenage boys. It turned out to be a very well posed, no "private parts" displayed, of the group on rocks next to the river. It brought to mind my growing up, when I learned to swim at the YMCA in the early 50's; Friday night was all male night, and skinny-dipping was allowed. Also, the locker room was simply male; there was no concern about impressionable boys seeing things they perhaps did not quite understand. Now, most high schools do not require showers after PE because they are afraid someone will be embarrassed or feel out of place. Which brings me to an occurence just last week at a cub day camp held on a Naval base. We went to the base pool, and had to enter through the mens locker room. You guessed it; there were naval personnel in the dressing area, and we found ourselves rushing a dozen 8 year olds through very quickly. Yet, we did not have to field any questions, or at least none that I know of.

We come back to the issues discussed in the "Wimp" article. There is reason to be careful and protective of children; but we seem to have gone far beyond common sense and making normal life more difficult for our kids in many cases. They are not nearly as fragile as many would have you believe; and they often are far less bothered by the unusual or unknown than we fear.

There needs to be a middle ground somewhere. Alot of it depends on us being rational enough to realize that participation in whatever we want is not possible. Sometimes we simply need to let it go, especially when to push it too far will simply destroy it completely. It took 20-30 years for the race issue to reach the point we now accept as status quo, and so could this one, referring to the Gay issue, not the God issue. But let's not "throw out the baby" by mistake.

Personally, in regard to the Atheist part of this discussion, I simply cannot accept the idea that BSA should have to alter its basic tenets. If you do not like them, go some where else. You are not forced to be a scout or scouter.

There are two continuing areas of attack, or, if some prefer, disagreement with BSA policies. One is the Gay issue, and the continuing castigation by the PC groups that BSA are ignorant bigots, or living in the dark ages, or other complimentary comments. Yet, seldom discussed is the little pre-cursor to Gay, avowed; (avow: to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame ;ever ready to avow his reactionary outlook). If you attach this word to other areas, such as smoking, drinking, gun carrying, and so on, then you would have lots of people that would not fit the leadership desires. While that word is not used in most areas that might be cause for turning someone down as a leader, it only because few would ever question the reasoning for the decision. Whether or not it is true in most cases, the "lifestyle" image attached to Gays is not one that most parents would want to expose their children to directly. And while I cannot prove it, I would wager strongly that few of the individuals that are so upset by this BSA stance would actually allow their own children or grandchildren to participate in a unit with one of these outspoken individuals in leadership.

So, the reality for the BSA is they are in a lose, lose situation with this issue. The PC position makes them scapegoats either way. Reality is that most units would disappear fairly soon if these individuals (again, we are talking about avowed) were allowed. And heaven forbid if it was approved, and then the individual was found to be a pedophile preying on the youth. The first thing out of the victims lawyers' mouths would be, "you knew about him; why did you allow him to be a leader?". And the jury would almost as quickly say, yes; give them some outlandish sum. Rock and a hard place.

Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity.

So, if you do not believe in one, then why would you even entertain joining the BSA? They do not require you to join, and you can do all the things they do other places, other than their singular advancement program. You can still be friends with youth in the program without joining, so that is not a reason.

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

This individual is more likely to be the one you would encounter, especially in the example given of the young man who, at 16 makes a decision regarding his beliefs. If, he is able to make a personal decision of this magnitude that he is, in fact, an Atheist, then he also will be able to understand the reason why he no longer can be part of the BSA. If, as is usually the reality, he is still not sure, but only reflecting a parental or family view, then he is still within the parameters. A serious discussion would probably determine that he knows "something" is responsible for the things that have no answer, but he does not know what. An good example of this is the quote of one of the Randall twins years ago that "Mother Nature" was responsible for the wonders of nature. It just was not the God that a majority of people recognized.

Part of the mistake too often made is the idea that God refers to one specific deity. That is nonsense; and BSA recognizes almost all forms, even the vagaries of Budhists. Granted, a large percentage of BSA members are of a specific few beliefs, but the law of reverence does not specify any of them.

So, why is the BSA singled out? For the very reason that they still actually stand for their foundational beliefs. And, while there are many who claim they are out of the mainstream, that is really not the case. Again, if you were able to actually get a true poll, one that was made without any political leanings, and could guarantee no personal attacks by the "radicals", it would still show a substantial majority agreeing with the BSA. But, of course no poll can do that, and people have become so tired of personal attacks by a small minority, that they simply refuse to get in the middle.

These are observations and opinions. Please do not attack me personally, as I will not respond, and will simply block any such individuals. Feel free to pontificate all you want about how accurate, rational or irrational, or skewed they may be.