skeptic

Of concern beyond understanding what "honor" means is why "personal honor" often appears to have little importance to them. Saying they will do something, but then not; ignoring money owed to another scout or to the troop for something pre-paid; apologizing for something, then repeating the offense multiple times, each with another apology. Other than setting the example, how do we reach them in regard to "having" personal honor?

Merlyn; No one said it was dishonorable, simply biased. A local newspaper should print local news, no matter if it relates to current PC infatuation or not. There is far wider spectrum of families, those people to whom the paper markets itself, who are interested in scouts, and other youth oriented organizations. So should they not be equally covered? Oh, but that might get me critism from the PC police, so I will simply overlook their activities unless they are handed to me already written; and then I will publish them weeks after the event and bury them in a back section somewhere. That seems to be a common practice in the larger print media.

Thank you Beavah for the spin-off. I tend to lean towards the media losing its perspective more often than not, influenced, as you note, by the ownership and profits. There are still many smaller papers that make an effort to be more traditional, but they tend to be very localized, and often are completely dependent on local advertisers or a personal purse. Media on the air, seems to me to be pretty biased one way or another in almost every instance. Few really good give and take programs that seriously get into issues; mostly perhaps because it is too expensive due to small audiences. Of course, that then brings us back to the viewers, most who are either too lazy, too poorly educated to understand, or too jaded to care. In SC right now, in Santa Barbara, there is an interesting case in the courts where the newspaper staff and union has sued the owner. The owner claims she has the right to dictate, and a large part of the staff disagreed and have been fired or forced to choose or quit. I am continually annoyed by what our local press seems to feel is of interest and not of interest, especially when they almost totally exclude scouting, other than prepared items from Eagle presentations. Even though local politicos and business people are involved, they never publish anything on the council Eagle dinner or awards at the annual meeting. And this year, a local native, in his 90's was recognized at the annual auction affair, and not one word was in the paper. Granted, part of this falls on the council itself for not preparing stuff perhaps, though I have been told the press knew of all of these. They just are not important enough to assign a reporter I suppose. But should the council need to "write" the stories? Meanwhile, the local county chapter of LGBT had an awards dinner and it was prominent on the front page of the local news section, and had a reporter byline. So, is there a bias?

So, should I draw the conclusion that the original question will not get answered; or that perhaps who exhibit the symptoms queried do not have an answer that makes sense? Meanwhile, perhaps someone should spin off a thread to deal with the media discussion. It seems to have a lot of interest, but does not fit with the original thread intent.

scoutmomma; Maybe I just see things too simplistically. To me, if my core values and personal belief system is secure, and I want the same for my kids, then I work really hard to give them that within themselves. Just seeing these things should not have any effect then, other than perhaps annoying me, if I have done a good job. But, as I said before, perhaps I am giving them more credit than is due.

Merlyn, the thread was opened so as to answer the question. My observation is that individuals seem to bring these lawsuits against religious expression and symbols because somehow they are harmed by these words or symbols. For example, how in the world is anyone harmed by a cross on the Seal of Los Angeles, one that basically represents the mission era and the founding of the city? How can a cross on a hill be so offensive that you cannot just ignore it; again when they usually have historic or memorial reasons for their existence in the first place. It seems to me that individuals who are that insecure in themselves have far more to fear than words and symbols. If, as some claim, a cross, Star of David, or even a Budhist Wheel somehow harms them or their children because they "may" respresent teachings they choose not to listen to, then they are not doing a very good job at supporting what they do believe, or want their children to understand. Why not ignore it on a personal level, and use it as a teaching example for their children's understanding of their principles, beliefs, or spiritual challenges? Many of the suits brought to court have only the vaguest connection to the so called damaged parties; and if it was not for the cost of fighting these, many communities would fight them. Change our court system so that the party bringing the suit would have to pay if they lost, including court costs of the defendent, and most would simply disappear, along with the legal predators who are actually behind many of them. There are few, if any absolute rights. And while some minority issues should be corrected and protected, the rights of the majority should not be trampelled in the process.

Okay Merlyn; here is a spin-off so perhaps someone can answer my question? It truly makes little sense to me that people appear to have so little internal strength that common words and symbols so intimidate them. So, for Merlyn, and others of similar feelings; explain how the simple exposure of someone to the mention of God is somehow hurtful to you. You do not believe God exists, nor any other power beyond yourselves, so why do you care? No one has said you have to change your opinion or accept theirs. While they believe their beliefs are more viable or real, they have no effect on you. Or does the remote possibility, shown by the existence of the word God or Power Greater than I, traumatize your Id? Why can't you simply "not believe", rather than find it necessary to belittle and demonify others for their their audacity "to believe"? Have fun with your answer; I have already donned my fire suit.

So, for Merlyn, and others of similar feelings; explain how the simple exposure of someone to the mention of God is somehow hurtful to you. You do not believe God exists, nor any other power beyond yourselves, so why do you care? No one has said you have to change your opinion or accept theirs. While they believe their beliefs are more viable or real, they have no effect on you. Or does the remote possibility, shown by the existence of the word God or Power Greater than I, traumatize your Id? Why can't you simply "not believe", rather than find it necessary to belittle and demonify others for their their audacity "to believe"? Have fun with your answer; I have already donned my fire suit.

The point about stopping youth from doing BOR's jogged a thought. What do others feel this has accomplished? To me, the boys did a better job than the adults, as long as an adult sat in to supervise and avoid hazing and unfairness. This was a major part of the leadership role for the PLC, and truly added to their development and feelings of being in charge. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing when properly applied, and in a monitored environment. We used PLC BOR's on occasion for discipline problems, and solved most problems without the need of direct adult involvement. While some on this board may not be familiar with this, those of us going back a bit, remember it pretty well.

Where is the monitor for this thread; time to close it IMHO. A few of you are truly not being the example I would hope to see in my leadership.

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.