skeptic

Victory????????????

For me, the future of the scouts with whom I work seems very difficult. Our generation, the one that was so idealistic at one time, will leave a tragic burden to overcome. And to think that less than 8 years ago, I was encouraged that our national budget was actually in balance, and the debt was decreasining. If the billions that have blown to the winds in the Middle East had instead been mortgaged to repair our own country, it would be at least a bit more acceptable. Every time I hear the cry that we cannot afford to fix our schools, transportation infrastructure, hospitals, or less fortunate, it galls me to the bone; especially when the next moment, these same people want to throw billions more that we do not have at problems in other parts of the world. Again, if the monies were to be used in monitored, beneficial programs to help these people pull their boots, then it would not be so upsetting. But, back to the realities of simply doing what little I can. I will vote, because if I don't, I have not set the example I should; but my faith in our so called representatives is pretty thin. Skeptic wears not very rosy glasses.

Rotary on double party line and letter prefixes; now we are really dating ourselves.

oldSM; Just curious; did you consider the suit because she did not send him home, or call you? Would the few extra days have made any difference in the diagnosis or treatment? Did you discuss your concerns with the council or camp, e.g. quick action often is indicated for some issues, and certainly a report to parents at camp close as well, should there be something unusual medically related. This might have made them review their methodology. If, when you took him to the specialist, it had turned out to be something minor, would you have still considered suing? Guess I really cannot see they were negligent, in that she told him to tell you so you could confer with your own doctor. But, did you perhaps miss an opportunity to improve their approach to unusual medical challenges in the camp setting? Great that he is close to completing his Eagle.

Not sure if it is true, but Nut Culture will soon be revitalized with new requirements related to investigation of certain current cultural activities. Lots of opportunity in this area, I would think.

Living in Southern California, it often has occurred to me that there may be a relationship to the vicious Santa Ana winds and the political season. Are there any parallels out there in other areas? An inquiring mind wants to know.

Part of the new National technology access is the advancement records from your local council. I am now able to review what they have on file directly for every scout; and I believe, once I start doing the records on-line, it will become almost automatic. That part though I still am a bit fuzzy on, as the report still has to be filed. If we do it on-line, but never filed the report, will it still be a real record?

Much of the contention here appears to come from our broad spectrum of experience. While the syllabus is the same for all, the people putting on the courses have local interpretations of the material. Having gone through the older version in the 80's, then serving as a counselor on the new course, I can see some similarities; but it was initially an adjustment for me. As we progressed through the pre-course training, I began to see how the 21st Century course was far better for the methods needed as "adults". In my original course, it was an 8 day continuum, and focussed on the outdoors and patrol method. While it was certainly very educational for some, many of us had had extensive training already in those skills, both as scouts and scoutleader training. And, today, in our area, the essentials courses focus on introductions to the specific level, cubs etc, and what they will need. Then, they have secondary courses that expand on specific areas. We also have separate outdoor training courses, the introductory level good for all boy scout leaders, and the advanced levels for the more intensive high adventure areas. Separate offerings for backpacking, biking, winter, and water activity. So, the WB course currently offered in our council presents these opportunities as available and recommended for the the best success; but it focusses on ways to lead and manage, while using bits and pieces of the the more intensive skills offered elsewhere. Hopefully, this makes some sense. I know that when I have had assistants willing to put in the effort on the outdoor oriented skill offerings, we have had the best outdoor program. When I have too few, the outdoor program suffers somewhat, especially now that I am no longer as able physically to help on longer hikes and backpacks. Woodbadge is still an advanced leadership course. It is not intended to take the place of other, more focussed offerings in specific levels. Those taking WB should ideally have had at least the first couple of levels of these other opportunities before WB. And, at least in my patrol I had as counselor, those who had the most preliminary work had the best ticket ideas and were better able to see the benefit of what they were doing. Was it because they were more management capable, or because they were more comfortable because they felt more skilled already in their actual area?

The dual registration, as I understand it, would only be needed if a scout had not yet achieved first class when he went into the crew. Thus the example of a "new" scout. Nothing at all says a boy cannot join a troop at any age, prior to 18. Good to hear GS would allow continued work. Should I presume that she would have to stay registered in a troop?

Venturing in our area tends to be heavily coed, as they usually focus on things the GS seldom attempt. I see the fact that a male venturer can earn merit badges, and Eagle (as long as earning first class in a troop)as another legal challenge waiting to happen. Scenario: A set of male female twins join a crew at 14, drawn by friends and the challenges offered. The boy discovers that he can still co-register in a local troop and become a first class scout, then work on Eagle, as well as the regular venture awards. His sister cannot. Now we have an unhappy sibling and probably unhappy parents. Solutions? One would be to let girls join BSA at 11, just like boys; but there really are good reasons why that does not work well, mostly related to the early differences in adolescent development. A better solution would be to simply allow the scout rank advancement program to be part of the crew options if chosen, retaining the age requirement to join at 14, but still finish by 18. Seems simple to me. Just my thoughts; what are some of yours?

Back to the kids perhaps. Units run with them in mind foremost will usually politely ask "ANY" individual who may negatively affect the kids to leave, simply because that possibility exists, no matter how small. So, we return to the "avowed" thing. Perhaps National could change this to "Any Individual Avowing Possibly Detrimental Influence". Then all the possible, even minutely, harmful examples could be pointed at, not just one. But, even then, someone will be offended. So, back to local control, as originally intended anyway by earlier standards on a national level. Part of the problem with this discussion is the idea that any difficult change or modification cannot happen overnight. Even most science appears to come to very slow conclusions of accepted principles; and some people continue to be skeptical. That is the nature of things. Still, as noted before, simple logic and common sense appear to not be in play much too often in these interminable arguments. No matter which "side" ultimately is correct (and how do we absolutely know even then?), if even the smallest chance exists that something may be harmful to the children in our charge, then we should not take the chance. And that decision falls on the parents and CO, as they are the closest to the group. So, will National eventually change its policies. It is likely to evolve into something that most CO's can live with. But finding the "right" way to do that may be more difficult than some of us know. Meanwhile, focus on your own units and what you "can" effect. Those of you who are here to simply berate the awful BSA, grow up and find something else to denigrate. No matter how bad you think the current policy is, the overall benefit of the organization far out weighs the negative. Putting on the fire suit now.

And so the apologists come out again, calling their opposers poor researchers or inadequate because they question similarly questionable studies on the other side. Meanwhile, the BSA stands up and says it will not take the "chance" by simply ignoring the possibility even 10% of the noted studies or evalutations may be true. Somehow, that seems the best tactic. But, as has been noted once or twice, common sense and basic reason appear to have little to do with this argument.

From a leader perspective, the award is about as clear as the remaining dregs in our reservoir after a year of no rain. Before, the major goals were always reachable, but now it is so vague that I really have no idea whether or not we will qualify. We set our initial goals last year at recharter, but since, there have been "reviews" and UC's, or whomever they can find to act at the moment are fudging paperwork. So, other than another ribbon on the pole, and a pretty new patch, what will it gain? Still, my scouts will be a bit sad if they do not get the new patch.

OGE; you make a pertinent point when you suggest that the "liability" issue would be the responsibility of the CO. One of my thoughts on this whole issue has been that, in the litigious society in which we live, BSA is between the rock and the hard place. While some would say otherwise, chances are that should a gay also turn out to be a pedophile and BSA knew he was gay and allowed him to be a leader, they might as well simply pay the large dollars, as the jury would immediately find them guilty when the lawyer made not of them "knowing". This simple reality is not considered by most as important, but it is.

In relation to the boy going elsewhere when challenged by a counselor. Ideally (!??) if a boy wants to change counselors, the leader will challenge him as to why; and a new counselor will hopefully determine why as well and make sure the requirements are met. I personally have had a couple of calls to switch to me from someone else, and I try to make it clear to the scout that I will not let them skate. One came to me, the other decided I might be harder than his first contact. Unfortunately, we all know there are authorized counselors who are really more signers than mentors. As Beavah points out, we do what we can to do it right and enhance the boys' experiences.

OGE; most likely that is part of the current $1 a year lease. The scouts take care of everything, including improvements that the city is now taking back. Point of course is that the people who look at this only see part of it. In most cases, the city is saving money by not having to maintain it, and it is probalby better maintained. Certainly the property in Balboa Park in San Diego would be like much of the rest of the park, overgrown and a hidaway for transients, if the scouts did not care for it. There would be no youth center most likely on Mission Bay if the city had had to build and maintain it; but a group of youth agencies specifically turned to BSA to build, maintain, and run the center which is open to "all" of the city groups. But, it often appears that the PC screamers simply do not care to recognize that benefits to many outweigh the perceived slight to a few (many who have not even actually tried to use the facilities).

Okay, so the Council pays the ransom of their building. Does that not mean then that the basic maintenance of the grounds and structure are now the responsibility of the city? What might that cost the city; or will they be like too many landlords and simply ignore their responsibilities? Can see it now; "City of Brotherly Love" taken to court as slum lord due to refusal to care for property leased to the BSA.

While there is a chance that Gore may have been blind sided, the fact remains that he, and his party ran an absolutely abysmal campaign. Even a slight effort in a number of areas by his party would likely have made the Florida fiasco mute. But, that is past, and hopefully we can move forward. He has apparently, whether you agree with him or not. I would agree with all the others who note that the documentary would have been stronger if the other side had been presented. Still, at least it has brought to fore the existence of large amounts of evidence that we, as a world population, are negatively affecting our enviroment. Whether the prognosis is as ill-fated as some would claim is still to be determined. We, on this board, will not live to see it (at least not in our present life form); but it is possible that ways will be found to mitigate the damage. In the meantime, we should be doing what we can to alleviate things we can effect, such as less use of certain fuels and finding cleaner ways to do things, and more efficient energy sources. The natural cycles in history seem to show that often global changes will self correct many problems; but we are not talking in human life spans here. Respect for the earth and environment is an extension of respect for ourselves and our future generations. What can be wrong with that? As an aside, coming from only very superficial understanding, but as a geographer (B.S. degree)and former weather observer in the Air Force; the polar icecaps are actually cold deserts, or have been. But, when the continental glaciation occurred, the climate was such that huge quantities of snow accumulated to cause the weight that evolved into the glaciers. If GW should change the physics of the atmosphere to once again allow large accumulations of snow in these northern climes, what will come from that? Just a thought. Back to scouting. Lets focus on what we can actually effect in bringing the program to the youth. Be open minded when questioned, but do not try to convert or be blind to other alternatives. We simply want these youth to have the skills to hopefully make their world a better place.

The polarization of opinions on some of these issues continuously astounds me. It is a little scary to think that some posters have so little ability to evaluate possible other opinions. How does that affect their ability be fair when acting as counselor for challenges within their groups? Being able to listen and make reasoned decisions on things is one of the things I would hope we can demonstrate to our scouts. An obdurate inflexibility is not the best example we can give.

Better one, I think Funscout would be to isolate ALL the world politicians for one week in a sealed chamber, cleaning all "their" emissions before releasing to the atmosphere. What do you think?

Time to stand up for what is right and to what is PC. The leader, SM or advisor, determines the grey areas of Spirit, Leadership, and Active status. It is our responsibility to hold the scouts accountable to the highest expectation to which he is capable, with the bar being raised at each higher level of advancement. When and if the time comes that the COR or council chooses to override me, most likely that will be the last you see me in the program, unless they can show me a valid reason for their decision beyond overbearing, self indulgence on the part of parents. This nonsense of "suffering fools" because it is easy is not living up to the tenets to which the scout program supposedly stands. To be a leader is to not always take the easy path. Sometimes you make the tough decisions; but when you do, make it clear as to why, and make sure you are certain in your decision. (This message has been edited by 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.