skeptic

After the first few so called debates, I would think we may need to rename this thread; The Republican Mine-field".

Wow Kudu; it took you 2 whole days to chime in with your standard opinion. Thought you had gone on vacation.

You know Eamonn, I can see you eventually retiring and spending time sitting cross legged on the top of a mountain.

Yep, I have had a couple of contacts from the site. I went in and fixed it to come to me, gave our troop site, and so on. We need everything we can, as we are the smallest troop, as well as oldest in the city. Where once we "were" the unit to come to, now we are on the "wrong end" of town, so to speak, and they tend to go to the other end where all the other units are. Have put out the info on how to edit the site, but we are still the only Boy Scout unit to have done it. Fine with me, even if it only gets a few to us. I have my troop email, and so I get the direct contact.

Now I have to get the pack we are working on to get signed up. Like the idea of schools served; will work with them to do that. We are merging our almost defunct pack with another small one that started meeting at our church after they lost their meeting site. We have convinced them to come to our church as sponsor, and simply choose one or the other number, since they are meeting together now.

Really no reason they could not continue with a physical roundtable, but broadcast it at the same time to those that want to use that method, or are unable to be there for this particular meeting. The technology is available, though many still do not use it, or understand it. Not sure we would see any better participation one way or the other. If you are too busy to go to a meeting, you may be too busy to go to one on-line. Hard to say.

But, the biggest issue is loss of the fellowship element. Face to face is still the part of RT that is best for many of us.

As far as UUA is concerned, I had an interesting experience related to it at Jambo in 2010. They had a booth at the midway with the other COR presences. I stopped and talked with them a bit, and the person there said that the issues were in the past, and that the conflict had been mostly the result of one or two of their more didactic leaders who overstepped their positions. Once calmer heads got involved, they worked out the issues with BSA to both of their acceptance. Only here-say, but seems to fit current climate.

For a bit more moist and clingy cake, add a box of instant pudding of choice, though vanilla or lemon work well. Also, a bit of the juice helps with less expensive cakes. Of course this discussion really belongs elsewhere, and probably extends one already here somewhere.

It is definitely due to pollution I feel, as well as to over medicating instead of letting natural immunity build up. Someone with better access might find some of the studies done on this, but I remember having read a few of them over the years. The earliest ones were actually more related to the effects of mustard gas in WWI, but the greater levels of breathing issues in large urban areas is documented. I have over 20 years on you, and watched the Southern California area slowly lose its clear skies due to the constant increase in air contamination from vehicles, as well as many factories spewing stuff, like the refineries in El Segundo. It of course is exacerbated by far too many vehicles and over-population. Even with the better combustion forced by newer regulations, and the catalytic devices, the sheer number of trucks and poorly maintained vehicles works against clean air. If we had the same constraints with half the population, we likely would have much less concern.

No, I am not willing to get rid of my car, but I drive one that gets better than average mileage, and I expect the industry to continue to find ways to improve their efficiencies to make up for that one millionth of cleaner air lost to current standards, and to quit looking for ways around, rather ways to improve.

As far as scientists are concerned, they should be apolitical if they are to be true to their research. But, just like economists or statisticians, too many can be bought and paid for by whomever wants a particular viewpoint pushed.

On the other hand, I really do not have issues with extracting more oil on our own, building more refineries, or utilizing other proven energy sources; I just want them to operate as cleanly as possible, and not pollute the environment. Use some of their exorbitant profits to find solutions to emissions, improve cleanup methods when things happen, and put "real" money into research for better technologies. I also wish the overreaching eco nuts would be a bit more realistic too. Some resources are renewable, so there is nothing wrong with carefully using them, but replacing them as we do. On the other hand, we need to not destroy our National Parks at the expense of avarice and ignorance.

The extremists are the biggest enemies we have, unless we stop letting them scare us, demand they have a modicum of civility, insist on compromise when feasible, and start simply using common sense.

Enough; my cynicism is starting to rear.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Brent; do not know how old you are, but I can assure you that air pollution is very real. I watched smog and other pollutants get worse and worse for years, and they are still far above levels of when I was a kid. Environmental laws work, and are responsible for the improvements over the past 20 years; but there is a long way to go. Proof of the problem is the huge growth in lung related problems with the younger generations as compared to adults who did not grow up with the same levels during critical developing years.

When I was in high school in the desert you could see the ridges along the Colorado River from our house, over a hundred miles away. Now, much of the time, there is so much air material that you are lucky to see half that distance, even on the best days. One of the things that led to forests in Southern California becoming infested with insects was their being weakened by smog. When I worked for the FS in 1969-71 in the San Bernardino NF, you could mark the level of smog by the health of the trees; there was a distinct difference in the foliage above 5,000 feet.

But regulation does not harm the industry in the long term, other than cutting into their profits and the pay of the upper tier management. Short term profit at the expense of the future generations' health is just as bad as perpetuating the debt onto our grandkids, maybe even worse.

A spectacular example of what a relatively simple regulation can do was demonstrated in England, specifically London. When they banned the burning of coal without air filters and use of the poorest grades of coal altogether, they eliminated the infamous black fogs of London. It was caused by coal dust suspended in the air that collected moisture, causing the dense fog, and all kinds of lung issues. No one there would want to go back to that type of thing; and we should want to eliminate pollutants today for the same reasons.

Just think, Boyce might not have gotten lost had they already banned the coal burning.(This message has been edited by skeptic)(This message has been edited by skeptic)

You simply have to supervise, and be "aware" of things. And never FORCE a scout to do something unless it is for his own safety in an emergency. If someone is reluctant, you take him aside and briefly discuss; but if he still simply does not want to do it, then he doesn't.

Again, simply do your job as a leader, and get to know your kids. Try to assure it does not get out of hand, and make sure that those involved running it do not get over zealous or step over the line somehow. If they do, you need to bring it to an end at once, and separately discuss why, possibly as a group, and maybe independently with the junior leaders.

JMO

While I personally feel we overreact to much of this stuff, and call it something it really isn't, we still need to be careful. And part of that comes down to us as leaders knowing a boy well enough "before" subjecting him to possible embarrassment and emotional or physical discomfort. This is especially true of new boys. "If" you decide to do a snipe hunt, you need to try to assure that the joke recipient(s) will not be overly upset with the possible outcomes. You also need to make sure that the final resolution "does not" result in the type of thing noted by OGE. That really was on the adult leaders, as they either used poor judgment, or worse, somehow lost track of a scout.

The last snipe hunt we had, I made sure that all participants, those that knew, and those that did not, or thought they did, understood this might lead to some embarrassment, and also let them know they did not "have" to participate. One opted out, so he just sat and watched. Later, he was disappointed he had not joined in.

Always that fine line. And we, as leaders, need to be particularly aware of what is going on so we can interject ourselves if necessary to tone it down, making sure it stays within common sense bounds.

JMHO as an "Old Guy"

Please, no more knots for things that already have an identity. The basic beads fulfill that purpose, wearing them with whatever necker or sometimes just the beads. A similar thing is the pocket dangle of OA, which can be put on any uniform shirt to represent OA membership.

Do not understand wearing WB stuff for troop functions, other than beads, if you are a member of the troop. Now, if you are not, then it certainly is appropriate.

Look for recurring faces; one of the leaders seems to be in most of them on the left; and a couple faces of boys seem very similar. From uniforms, I would say the general dates are close to accurate; then add in the recurring leader, and you are close.

Yes Beavah, I see a continuing tendency to label many things we did in fun and friendship at one time as hazing, as a very occasional occurrence might happen that found a scout getting their feelings hurt, something accidentally happening to harm them that would rarely happen if similar actions occurred.

This applies to traditional things like snipe hunts, sending scouts for bacon stretchers and smoke shifters, notching of arrow in OA, actual tap outs in OA, elimination of certain skits, and so on. Similarly, many long accepted children's games are becoming banned on elementary campuses because an occasional child is not physically or emotionally able to participate on an equal basis, so they can "never win" within their own abilities. Surely much of this is simply an extension of the "failure is not acceptable syndrome" that leads to kids simply not trying, or watered down competitions that mean little or nothing. It also relates to the continued growth of foolish and punitive law suites, and the tendency for many to settle rather than spend to defend. The paranoia about possibly getting sued can be directly connected to the misinterpretation or change of meaning in hazing, or at least I think so.

Of course, occasionally someone publishes something pointing out the foolishness, but it does not seem to make much difference, even though everybody rushes to agree with the premise.

Personally, I find myself having to force focus on common sense and walking the line between allowing fun if it is basically harmless, and protecting scouts and kids by making reality based judgements. It gets harder the older I get. I honestly fear for the kids that never, or seldom, are exposed to the harsher realities of the world.

Would be nice if we had even one IT person. Our website is almost useless, and mostly out of date for a lot of stuff. We have no dedicated individuals working it. Needless to say, our communications are hindered a lot, even for a small one county council. Still have close to 9,000 people on the books, with leaders.

We have an Assistant SE.

A warning; maybe next one is in Washington.

It appears that the Gods have now made their opinion known. By shaking up Washington, maybe some of their brains will fall into place. One can dream I suppose.

While the listed articles shed light on this subject, and show some instances of questionable or likely poor decisions, they also indicate that the rank and file volunteers were often against the transactions, and in some cases led directly to their not happening. The Chicago situation is the most prominent case, as can be seen from this forum. What is not noted in regard to the Chicago outcome, possibly due to the date on the Hearst article, is that the council professionals involved were almost all replaced when National came into the conflict. If local scouters do not utilize their camps or preserves, and the upkeep becomes a lodestone on program and so on, then hard decisions need to be made. We need to do what we can to mitigate the worst of these; but sometimes it has to be due to circumstances over which we really have little control. On the other hand, National needs to look hard at the levels of compensation to some, especially at the top. They also should seriously consider finding ways to help smaller councils hold on to irreplaceable properties by subsidizing and encouraging more use of other scouts and outside organizations.

On the other hand, conservation includes management of resources in a mode that tries to mitigate damage or overgrowth. A recent example is the NPS beginning to "remove" forests encroaching on meadowlands in Yosemite due to policies that have stopped natural fires from doing what nature designed. Thinning of overgrowth allows other species to survive due to space and light. Removing diseased or insect filled trees reduces the stress on other trees and wildfire fuel due to dead trees that are tall torches in such instances that allow the fire to spread faster. And it is true that some land can no longer be used as it was 50 or 100 years ago. We can try to assure it is still used as parkland or open space whenever possible. Sometimes that is not a viable option, so the resources should be harvested financially.

It is pretty obvious to me that the first linked article is a hatchet job that was written due to our current stances on controversial PC issues.

No one will ever be completely satisfied with these things. Overall, BSA still has a far better record in environmental and conservation areas than most large groups.

Reading through a September, 1928 SCOUTING, and came across a couple of interesting statements in the Chief Scout Executive's Page. This was West of course.

"It is especially important, as we approach the Presidential Campaign, that all Scout Leaders be fully informed whole-heartedly cooperate in an effort to avoid involving the Boy Scouts of America in controversial questions. Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution reads: "The Boy Scouts of America shall not, through its governing body or through any of its officers, its chartered Councils or members, involve the Boy Scout Movement in any question of a political character, but each official and member shall have freedom of thought and action as an individual."

Further on, he states: "The aim and purpose of the Boy Scouts of America is, through a program of wholesome outdoor activity, and the Scout Oath and Law, to develop character and train boys for the responsibilities of citizenship. It is not within the province of the Local Council, or even the National Council, to undertake to pass resolutions or legislate on any one of the many problems before the American people. We are obligated by the Constitution and By-Laws to avoid participation in controversial and political questions."

While these statements apply directly to the subject of this thread, I can see how it might also be applied to one of our ongoing points of concern and disagreement in other threads on this forum.

Looked it up, and there have only been the two non person awards, though the Oakridge Boys received it as a group.

Also interesting that for some reason, only one person received it in 1975 (Ford) and 1981 (Art Linkletter). Other years saw quite a few, or only 4 or 5. World scouters also have received it fairly often, including recipients of the Silver Wolf.

Very few women, and most, if not all, in the past 25 years. One or two instances of a couple also.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

You probably need to find a copy of the National Meeting material; this past year was in San Diego.

Suspect that the resolution stuff is not nearly as common as back in the earlier period.

From SCOUTING, May, 1928.

When the Silver Buffalo Award began in 1926, there were 22 awards issued initially. These included all of the men we list as founders, with the first going to Baden Powell. Interestingly, the second is listed as being given to the "Unknown Scout" of the lost in London story. It was then decided to issue seven a year going forward, five to Scouting leaders and two to youth leaders outside of Scouting. In 1928, the seven awarded included, as number 30 overall, "The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier". This was followed with Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh.

I am challenged to see if any other special awards have been made to "monuments in honor of individual(s)". Will have to see if I can find a list of all the recipients to date.

Thanks Shortridge; I did mean Pinchot, not the Chilean dictator.

No doubt that going backpacking in small groups is the best method; but larger groups by vehicle can still be efficient and respect the environment with a bit of effort.

My main point here was that from my readings, it is apparent that BSA was well out in front overall with their approach to the outdoors. In the teens they already were preaching forest management, even having a special forestry program on the east coast for a while. And many of the earliest adult leaders in the environmental/conservation movements were also very supportive of BSA.

In my continued perusal of older material, occasionally posted in history section, I am made aware of just how important conservation was to the program from its outset. Surely part of this had to do with Teddy Roosevelt, Seton,and Pinochet, among others.

So, when we have people complaining about how bad Scouts are for the camp grounds and forests, I cannot understand how narrow minded and ill informed these people really are. That is not to say that we have a small group that does not follow rules and LNT ideals. But overall, BSA is one of the best large groups, maybe the best, in this arena.

Thoughts?