vol_scouter

FDR was an important leader in the sense that he gave the country hope and some confidence that things would get better. The programs that he enacted helped to provide that confidence. But as I earlier posted, his programs did not help the unemployment. Public television did a multi-night series on FDR that gushed with praise (as would be expected from public TV). The series ointed out that FDR's programs did not work. The unemployment rate was not substantially changed until WWII. FDR gets credit for programs that ended the great depression but it was WWII. FDR deserves credit for many things but his programs were not brilliant except in a public confidence sense and they did not end the great depression or get people back to work.

Also, according to a public television series on FDR that gushed of approval, FDR's much vaunted programs of the New Deal had NOT improved the unemployment rate (~30%)! The onset of WWII finally ended the unemployment issues for the US.

Returning to GaHillBilly's initial point, NPR is clearly biased to the left. I listen to NPR every morning and most evenings. I receive much information than with most other sources. It is nice to have less shrill discussions. However, the reporting is quite biased to the left. Usually, the stories are accurate and factual. The issue is on any given day what stories are run. On any given day, there are a variety of stories that are legitimate to cover. If you pay close attention, the story about Obama will be positive (fund raising is up, the latest promised program painted positively, etc.) while the report on McCain and now Palin (Biden is largely ignored) talks about a problem. The unstated message is that Obama is doing well and McCain/Palin are not.

Today, NPR discussed Obama making the comment about lipstick on a pig which at least seemed to be taken by the crowd as a slap to Governor Palin. NPR pointed out correctly that McCain and many other politicians have used the same phrase (both Republicans and Democrats). That was a good story. Then NPR talks to a farmer with pigs who says that he put lipstick on a pig. Thus, making fun of the criticism of Obama by making it seem trivial. On other occasions, NPR tells us how Obama is intelligent, eloquent, and a skilled politician. If he is so good then the accusation of a slam on Palin is accurate. After listening to NPR, you feel that it is silly but, if intentional, the slam is significant for a candidate who promised to change the way that campaigns are conducted (that would be a first in the history of the country).

NPR is far to the left in the stories that it carries like most of the media. For example, when Senator McCain went to the middle east, he had little coverage. The week that Senator Obama spent on vacation in Hawaii, he got more press than McCain who was actively campaigning.

It must be frustrating to the left that even with overwhelming biased reporting, their presidential candidates do only so-so.

There is a third possibility. We had an extremely corrupt governor who owned a trucking firm. He nearly closed the DOT scales. They operate only very limited hours still. The boys could be at some danger being at a weigh station where there are no officers.

If the only position that the volunteer has is through the unit, the most likely thing to happen is that the individual will no longer be part of the unit but will for a while retain BSA membership. Unless the unit or CO is really angry with the volunteer (assuming no YP problems), the unit/CO will more than likely let the issue go and not report it to the council. If that is the case, the volunteer will be a BSA member until the next renewal date, at which there will be no sponsor so the membership will lapse (assuming that the volunteer doesn't get involved on the district/council level). Even if the volunteer is brought to the attention of the council, their membership may not be revoked because they may be recruited to a district/council position.

Bob White,

Do you know what the impetus was for the re-organization? Also, what is the improved communication hoping to achieve?

Bob White,

I have NEVER turned down a boy - the statement is out of line. No boy that ever came to me as an Eagle advisor ever failed to complete a project that was accepted. I emphasized the leadership requirements rather than other hours etc. I have been on EBOR that considered turning someone down for 'not enough hours' and I successfully blocked that effort. You should not make accussations about people with no information.

If you think that you will change human nature by some sort of guidelines, you are mistaken. The Eagle service project should be revamped at the very least.

So what does "was the amount of time sufficient for the scout to demonstrate leadership skills" mean? How do you determine if the requirement is met? How do you help a young man to plan a project fulfilling that goal? Human nature is to deicde upon some sort of guideline that represents that abstract goal. This results in a hodge podge of different ideas as to the meaning. Some would accept 50 man hours (the hours must be of some importance or national would not require it to be reported) while others would say that 50 is never enough. We all are more comfortable with a more definite yardstick. As long as the yardstick is so nebulous, people will invent interpretations of the meaning of the requirement. That is human nature and you will not be successful in overcoming it. I am not apologetic for advising my Eagle candidates in such a way to help them to understand the requirement and to be aware of what local scouters may deem to be important.

This exchange again points out why the Eagle project needs to be scraped or modified.

Once again, I believe that we are allowing the Eagle project to make up for passing boys who barely (at best) pass other requirements. Moer emphasis should be placed on meeting those standards which are often much more definite (swim so many yards using a particular stroke). The Eagle project has grown to such a large task that most boys see it as the major barrier to Eagle. The required MBs have taken a back seat! This is not where the emphasis should lie. If the boy has demonstrated troop leadership in his positions, then leadership has been already shown. Are we afraid that the units are not allowing enough leadership or that the boy is passed without doing a good job? The Eagle project shoudl not be the size barrirer that it has become, it should be scaled back. If the hours are not to be used as a yardstick, do not allow them to be reported!

The Eagle project takes the FUN out of scouting. Polace more responsibility with the troops to allow the boy to provide leadership. Make the passing of the MBs more important since they have a wider array of important skills.

That's my point. If the project does not have 'enough' man hours, then the project could be turned down by the EBOR as not be 'substantial' enough. None of the projects during my tenure actually had 100 man hours but all passed. Yet this is a problem - what is substantial enough to suit the EBOR? It can change depending upon the members of the EBOR. When a boy asks how many hours that the project should have one needs to give some guidance. I NEVER gave false guidance, said that the project ever had to have any particular number of hours, etc. All of my boys passed.

I wish that rather be critical of my possible failings, that you would consider my other points that I have made in the interst of productive discussion.

Bob White makes the statement about untrained or untrainable. Most of the problems that I have seen has been from trained volunteers. They can tend to be over zealous in enforcing rules. Is training beneficial or not to make volunteers try to help the boys to advance not to create barriers or hurdles.

When I was Troop Eagle advisor for several years I used 100 hours as a guideline for the boys but emphasized that the scope of the project was the important issue. A well devised and worthy project may require only 40 or 50 man hours but most seem to require in the range of 80-100 to complete the project. Sometimes the boys, as we all do, need some measure to help them judge the expected scope of the project. The EBOR should never use the number of hours as a measure without looking at the entire project.

Finally, most seem to think that the project needs to be kept. Is that only because we are doing such a poor job of making the boys to actually pass the requirements for the various ranks and MBs. Do we think that we can let the boy slide because the Eagle project will make up for it before Eagle? Some one said that if there is no Eagle project then the only thing between First Class and Eagle are MBs. If the MB requirements are enforced, why is that not enough? I am not against the project but I do believe that it is much too involved and too much of a barrier. It has become the most significant hurdle to Eagle. I believe that there should be far less emphasis on the Eagle project and more emphasis on Lifesaving, First Aid, Personal Fitness, Citizenship, Camping, etc. That is why I believe that the Eagle Service project as now structured should be scraped or much curtailed.

Let us make scouting FUN again!!

jblake47,

You make good points. That may be a way to keep the boys from being crushed by rules. It is no wonder that scouting numbers are in decline when rules are more important to the adults than the youth. The program is there for the FUN and development of the youth. I earned my Eagle in 1968 before the Eagle project. Adults made the program fun. They were not overly interested in the 'letter of the law' as to advancement rules - thank Goodness! The program is should be all about the YOUTH not the rules! However we can accomplish this, the youth will be better served.

In reading the posts on what advancement committees are requiring for Eagle projects I was struck by the absolutely needless requirements. It has to be typed (if readable, why not hand written), it has to be ~100 pages (so we encourage verbosity), it has to have a budget, it has to have signatures, it has ... This requirement has become onerous. The original reason was for the boy to direct a service project. The current result is a project that many of the adults would find difficult to fulfill all of the requirements. I realize that there is much to be gained from any of the different requirements. I believe that the sum total is too much! As adults, we become very rules oriented and we are setting up barriers to advancement in order to fulfill the 'rules'. Throw out the 'rules' and return to the original concept or scrap the Eagle service project all together.

acco40,

Your reasoning and logic is sound. The argument is something of a chicken and egg argument. The only way to resolve that argument is to somehow 'know' whether or not God exists. At this time, that is entirely a matter of belief which shades how we interpret data. Anthropologists who claim that they 'know' that values came first causing religions to be formed for various reasons are essentially doing the same thing that we are doing though better studied on early cultures. Until we know that there is a God or not we can never answer these questions. I do not think that arguing these issues ever gets anywhere.

Packsaddle,

Some policies were changed and others were not. No matter how much the next president (whoever that will be) tries to change things, most will likely remain the same. I agree - that makes the system great.

I would like to see the Congress step up to the plate and address some of the social issues that plague the body politic. For example, the abortion debate should be in the Congress rather than the courts. That way the laws can better reflect the sentiment of the public (which numerous poles indicate do not coincide with either of the extremes). The Congress is composed of a lot of cowards who allow the courts to deal with an controversial issue that can be pushed the way of the courts. The problem with the courts is that changes are difficult and often slow to see any change. Also, the courts are less likely to reflect the sentiment of the public. I doubt that the Congress will ever fulfill its' role when it can allow the courts to take the political hits.

That said, it is still the best system ever devised. It allows change but has enough inertia that rapid sweeping changes are difficult to accomplish but some change is rather easy. BTW from my point of view, often when the Congress has sweeping rapid change it means true emergencies (war for example) so it is probably better to have incremental change.

Beevah,

Thanks! That confirms my suspicions that the ACLU forces entities to settle or is able to outspend them. In the first case, it is a form of coercion and in the second it is an unfair advantage for the ACLU. A 57% winning percentage given those advantages does not overly impress me either. Beevah, your idea that the feds should only guarantee fees in cases against the federal government does seem like a good solution. IMHO, the ACLU too often picks on smaller entities and bullies them issues without real harm.

Getting back onto topic. I agree that the BSA is allowing a lot of latitude on the interpretation of the DRP. This allows dealing with youth who are unsure of their faith and those of faiths less well represented in the population. However, it does open up issues whenever the DRP is enforced. Personally, I think that if we enforce Duty to God, then all of the Scout Oath and Law should be enforced as well (such as physically strong). It does not seem reasonable to me to allow an obese unfit youth to become an Eagle but to prevent a confused youth who declares that he is an 'atheist' from becoming an Eagle. I agree that the 12th Scout Law is the most important, but the other 11 points and the Oath should be considered as well.

My apologies to the list and thanks to NJCubScouter. I was wrong that the ACLU gets paid even if it loses. Hopefully, anyone who read that is still reading this thread. The ACLU still has a distinct advantage in suing a small community, a church, or whoever else because they know that if they win they will get paid. I wonder how many of these suits they would file without a federal guarantee of payment? A question for the attorneys, does this mean that the ACLU can out spend the defendants (for legitimate charges) because they will be assured to be paid if they prevail? If so, that gives them an advantage over almost any defendant! One way or the other, it seems that many of the lawsuits that I see the ACLU filing are on issues where I do not agree in whole or part with the ACLU. I understand the need for the law and I am not saying that it should necessarily be repealed but perhaps the spending on each side should be equalized in some way. This goes back to the idea that as tax payers we all see tax dollars spent on things that we do not individually agree. So that is not a reason for the government not to spend money in a certain way.

Yes, it requires a deity.

Well said Beevah!

Merlyn,

I do understand analogies and implied meanings! I do not even dislike most atheists that I know. I have not seen you admit that you may be wrong in your beliefs but in my previous post I admitted that you mat be right - so who is blinded by dislike. To insinuate that the BSA foments hate and discrimination becaise of its' membership standards is ridiculous. It shows that your intolerance to others beliefs. If you respected others, you would not continue to be agitating people on this website - I doubt that they are going to atheist sites and irritating the people on the site. You lack respect for others and their views.

Merlyn,

If you read my post carefully, I did not denigrate atheists. Also, my beliefs have nothing to do with the BSA values. Your dislike of religion makes it difficult to accept other viewpoints. I did not say that atheists are depraved, immoral, or in any way bad. Though I have personal religious beliefs, I cannot prove that you are not correct in your beliefs and I admit that a supreme being may not exist. I do believe that society's value system comes from religions (even if from false beliefs) and not from basic human nature. We may differ on that point. If I am correct, then a world with religions to provide moral authority will degenerate into depravity. If human nature is basically good then I am wrong.

For a well educated attorney, I find it sad that you feel that you must resort to implying that I am anti-semitic because I do not share your belief system. I have not said or implied such things towards you. I as said, I have not joined several clubs where I would like to play golf because they do not allow some to be members: i.e. blacks and Jews. Just because you cannot refute my argument because for either of us it is opinion only, please keep from insinuating untrue things. To imply that because private organizations have membership requirements they foment hate and discrimination is simply not true. Private organizations can be even evil but they can also be good. So membership requirements do not determine anything but who can join.

After thinking about acco40's query further, I will provide my feeling about essentially getting rid of the 12th point of the Scout Law. I my opinion, all of the other laws hinge upon the 12th. All moral and ethical systems on earth have their roots in religious teaching (I am referring to all major religions). Acting civilly to one another is not innate (unlike the secular humanists wish to believe). We are all animals and thus we wish to procreate with the fittest and we wish to survive. Working together, getting along, etc have little to do with those urges. Criminal behavior (that will often refer to as base) is more close to our innate behavior. Thus, the key to the other laws is a sense of reverence. I do not think that the program would be the same without the 12th point. Excluding atheists may have cost us some CO's and members but IMHO dropping the 12th point of the law would take much out of the program itself.

I am not writing this to be confrontational - typewritten words lack important inflections. This is just the way that I see the world. I do not believe that atheists are bad because of their beliefs or that they cannot behave in an ethical and moral manner. I do believe that if mankind turns entirely to atheism that it will descend into depravity.

These are my opinions and are based upon my personal observations. I suspect that some (many?) may not feel the same way. I do not intend to argue about opinions where there are no facts.

acco40

While I do not entirely disagree that some consideration to atheists might make some sense, I believe that in many sections of the country that making that change would lead to a mass exodus of CO's. Scouting is not about how many but what is taught but there must be enought places to teach it.

I agree with Mr. Boyce that political correctness is VERY dangerous. I disagree that it damands tolerance - it demands acceptance. It demands not that society tolerate all life styles as is largely done now but that society endorse those lifestyles as perfectly acceptable 'alternatives'. Some speech is now banned as 'hate' speech - some of the comments here are less than polite should we be picked up? I have a legal responsibilty to tolerate my fellow citizens but I do not have to like them or say nice things to them. I have the right to assemble and as a private group exclude any group that I wish. (Note: I do not belong to a country club though an avid golfer because I do not agree with some of the membership exclusions). Crimes against some groups are elevated to a higher level because of a classification - so some people are more protectd than others, is that a fundamental that we are founded upon? We should all fight political correctness before our rights to disagree with it are stripped from us!!

I think that the CO's provide meeting resources that would be difficult to replace. Often the disinterest is better than meddling in unit affairs. Due to the DRP, many other potential meeting places could be off limits. With the draconian requirements for consumer checks on all members, the BSA would certainly mot like the idea of units meeting in homes. Also, the Troops get exposure on Scout Sunday that improves positive visibility and community involvement. I am afraid that the short term effect would be a largely negative one.

Those other organizations are not about building character, leadership, etc. 4-H is growing partly because it is looking for chidren outside of farm communities. I wonder if the founders of the YMCA and the YWCA would approve of the lack of Christian teaching?

The BSA should have standards and try to stick by them. We may disagree what those should be but nonetheless the standards ought to be there.

Religious denominations that grow are those that have strict standards of belief. The denominations that allow for a broad set of beliefs tend to be relatively flat in growth or losing members.