slontwovvy

Thanks for the thoughts.

As a clarification to eamonn, among others, the counselors who signed off on his merit badges are indeed registered counselors. I only know that he failed to complete the requirements because he started those merit badges with me.

I'm not the SM; I'm an ASM.

Hello everyone,

I haven't posted here in a long while but have an issue that has come up recently and I would appreciated any advice anyone can offer.

There is a 17-year-old Life Scout in the troop who will be leaving enxt week to go abroad for a year, during which time he will turn 18. He completed his Eagle project last summer, but has had some hangups with scout spirit and merit badges. For the former, he has been verbally abusive (and occasionally physically) to boys in the troop, and has often been caught lying about it and other things to troop adults. For the latter, he had to complete Personal Management, Personal Fitness, and Family Life.

However, he has failed to deal with these issues. His promises for change at his scoutmaster conference and to troop adults have gone unfulfilled, and he failed to complete the 90 day requirements for some of his merit badges; he started too late, but found counselors (in one case a parent) to sign off on them anyway.

However, the district advancement chairman, not knowing of these things and wanting to get another Eagle feather in his cap, has scheduled a board of review for this weekend anyway. Further, it will not have any representation by the troop, only district people who do not know the scout. (In my council, an Eagle BOR has 3 or 4 troop adults and 1 or 2 district people on it--I'm not sure how it's done elsewhere). This will allow the boy to effectively be rubberstamped without any questioning on his tasks for improvement, or about his honesty.

The one thing the troop still needs to do is have the scoutmaster sign the scout's Eagle application. My question is this: is it right to with-hold the scoutmaster signature and not allow this scout to get Eagle? Or is this an overreaction?

A few general suggestions, then a few specific to the nature area:

-The attention span for boys is about 15 minutes; after that, you lose them. Plan your instruction in light of this fact. You should be moving around, doing new things, interrupting for a quick round of Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes, etc. Keep them active and constantly reset their attention spans.

-Know a bit of interesting peripheral information about your topic to spice things up. While the actual merit badge material might not be the most exciting stuff in the world, if you can intersperse that with information on, say, black holes (for Astronomy merit badge), the boys are more interested and this interest will usually carry over to the rest of the material.

-Always remember the adage that ends "Involve me and I learn." Don't do demonstrations, get them involved.

More specific to the nature area:

-Edible plant hikes

-Star bikes--with the high adventure department, a mountain-bike overnight to a good stargazing location.

-Edible Landfill and Edible Glacier (I'm sure you could find the instructions online).

-Bring in outside people. For instance, if you can find a raptor rehabilitation center or similar organization nearby, they often can do bang-up demonstrations with live birds, etc.

I'll write down some more specific suggestions for merit badges when I find the time.

The editor of a local newspaper, himself an Eagle Scout, recently wrote an editorial on the subject.

http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/opinion_14632159.shtml

I don't believe anyone could have said it better.

Hmm, a post-pubescent 15-year-old boy...If my hold on the English language serves me correctly, this guy isn't a pedophile, he's a homosexual.

Merlyn's example comparing the KKK and NAMBLA to the BSA is completely absurd. First of all, Merlyn should know that some sorts of speech are not protected by the first amendment, and as such, governments should not be enabling it. Among these methods of speech are speech designed to intimidate (i.e. KKK) and speech which directly leads to or promotes the commission of a crime (i.e. NAMBLA). To say that these three organizations are equal is to deny the Constitution.

Slont

Thanks for making my day, Merlyn. That was a hoot!

I just found it rather amusing that this legislation spends more than half of its length praising the Boy Scout organization. And I found the woman's comments so delightfully moderate, so politician-like. And her statement that she knows several Eagle Scouts who have left the organization...I think the number who have mailed their badges back to the BSA headquarters is less than two hundred total (over 40,000 given last year alone). I realize one can quit without turning in the badge, but how outraged can they be if they don't send in the badge? Oh, well, I digress.

On a darker note, I am somewhat appalled that with all of the problems the California legislature could be focusing on, they have to waste their time focusing on minor, almost nonimportant issues.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/index.html

Unrelated, but I thought this was interesting as well.

Hmm, I guess the whole, "please, share your opinions on the questions" must not have been too clear. I know that could have been hard for some people to understand. (sarcasm)

Merl, I'll ask you one more time--please, share your opinions on the questions. I can see the relevance in them, and I'd be willing to bet many other posters can as well--they show a pattern, they are fairly closely related.

I have to wonder when you're unwilling to share your opinion on a few topics, and I have to wonder when you think the world would be better off without the Boy Scouts. Let's see, millions of hours of community service, training in self-discipline, respect for the outdoors, citizenship, and fitness, a chance for the less privileged to rise above their condition, and so much more...can't see any good in that...

Then defend your opinions, don't evade the questions.

Merl, to quote myself, "I was asking you your opinion on the questions." When I referred to "you" in my original post, I was not referring to you personally, but to the American left.

Put down the outrage.

All your silence does is prove my points--you don't bother to read what other people say, preferring to stay snug in your hole, so to speak, and, secondly, that you are being silent as an admission that you can't provide a good answer.

Man, leave for a few hours, and when you get back...

Merlyn, by not answering my questions, all you did was affirm my suspicions. I find your hypocrisy truly amazing--espousing "tolerance" toward seemingly anyone except straight white Christian males while stooping to petty name-calling of anyone who does not fall into your lock-step cadence of political correctness. Additionally, you call upon everyone else to answer your questions while you ignore anytime a question of you.

I was asking you your opinion on the questions. Looking at your past posts and comparing your ideologies to groups, and considering that your most common liberal source is the ACLU, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that you share many, if not all, of the viewpoints of the ACLU. It is a logical train of thought.

Second, my questions were not erroneous--I never stated that whites could not receive scholarships from the UNCF--read my post. Bob Jones admits blacks...your claim is moot.

Last, you state "Of course, the whole slant of your questions is just misdirection; if other injustices exist, does this excuse the BSA's dishonesty in chartering discriminatory BSA units to government agencies? No, of course not."

Again, you are guilty of not reading, instead letting your own preconceptions get in the way. My questions were not intended to justify any actions of the BSA, but rather an attempt to understand how the broader group of modern liberals can justify these contradictions. I was once fairly liberal, but left the left when I saw these contradictions. Just curious as to how you can justify them. Your silence merely confirms my beliefs.

And I'm still curious as to if you've ever attended an actual Scout meeting.

Slont

Merlyn, I respect and understand your right to think what you do. What I don't understand, however, is this: if you and your friends at the ACLU are such zealots against discrimination and injustice of all kinds, why are you

--not opposing the very clearly discriminatory and racist policy of affirmative action?

--not going after the tax exempt status of discriminatory groups like the United Negro College Fund like you did Bob Jones University?

--supporting hate crime legislation for crimes against all ethnic groups except straight white people? (I remember a case where a white, straight girl was raped and murdered by a gay couple--no hate crime charge. Similarly, when a minority gang attacked a white child--admitting they did it because he was white--there was no hate crime charge.)

--not supporting the rights of the group under seige by the largest mass killing in history--the children victims of abortion?

--intent on providing homosexuals with extra rights, rights not equal to, but greater than the majority possesses? (At a school in my area, the ACLU sued to have the school break policy and start a Gay-Straight Alliance. When a few students wanted to start a Straight Club, the ACLU director for Wisconsin refused to participate in the suit.)

Just curious...

Slont

I'd be very curious to discover if Merlyn has observed a Scout meeting recently, or ever. Maybe he'd see just how "discriminatory" the average troop is. Last time I checked, most Scout troops didn't change the oath to say,

"On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law, to hate gays and atheists at all times, and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

As my old debate coach used to say, "Always try to understand where your opponent is coming from. Seeing the other side of the issue will allow a more persuasive argument, and less open hostility toward your opponent." Always something I took to heart. I've always tried to read as many different sources of news as possible. Some of the people I tolerate least are the people who blindly spout their claptrap that they've been fed, without bothering to find out the other side.

Maybe Merlyn has "seen the other side," but if he hasn't, maybe he should see the good that Scouting does.

Just an observation.

I was thinking about this the other day, and thought other people might like to share too.

--Philmont, from watching the sun set on Mt. Phillips on the Fourth of July to hiking in over the Tooth of Time.

--Watching a storm crossing Snowbank Lake on a Boundary Waters backpack expedition.

--Having my mother pin my Eagle Scout badge on my uniform.

--As a camp counselor, seeing one particular youth "getting" EVS for the first time.

Let's see some others please...

Slont

I am always disgusted when people like her use youths to achieve their own ends. Just like Mr. Cozza using his son to spout his own claptrap.(This message has been edited by slontwovvy)

Oooh! Also, "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken" with Don Knotts.

"A grail?"

Gotta be Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Rooster, you are correct. What the media doesn't tell you! Through the entire Roman Catholic priest scandal, I was waiting for observers to call it what it was--a homosexual priest scandal, not a pedophile priest scandal. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children, while homosexuals are attracted to adolescent post-pubescent children. Many, if not most, of the abused children were adolescents at the time, not pre-pubescent children. Another reason why I agree with the BSA policies.

Agreed--Eagle isn't the only end to Scouting. Some of the finest Scouts I've ever known are members of the "Life for Life" Club.

I was not trying to be exclusive of the Mormon faith. I am familiar with the tenets of Catholicism (I am Catholic) and many Protestant denominations. However, I do not have a great understanding of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Thus, I am unwilling to misrepresent their beliefs. It wasn't out of any desire to exclude, just of a desire to get everything right.

littlebillie--last time I checked, Catholics were Christians. In fact, they still are Christians.