Scouters as communist weapons dealers

[Oak Tree 15]

Fuzzy Bear,

 

I just wanted to say I absolutely love your postings. And you're right, this discussion is clearly based around Scout socks. Any unit that doesn't include Scout socks as part of their official uniform should have their charter pulled just as if they'd said they won't follow the Youth Protection guidelines.

 

And many units actually do document that their unit uniform does not include the socks, and they publish it for people to see.

 

Did anyone else see Boys' Life this month? All those climbers with no helmets?

 

Oak Tree

[Bob White 20]

Bob, I thought you had invited a discussion about obedience and disobedience.

 

Whatever gave you that idea. I invite you to find that anywhere in my posts. A couple posters rather than answer the actual question tried to change the topic a number of times at that was one aveneue.

 

The thread was about this..

 

"the willingness of Scout Leaders to pick-and-choose what rules they will follow based solely on their personal comfort or convenience."

 

Eamonn has asked the same question in another thread following this one, and no one is answering his questions either. Oh lots of folks have admitted that they don't follow rules in or out of scouting but know one has yet to explain the duplicity of being a scoutleader who breaks rules for their person comfort but expect scouts to obey troop rules or risk punishment.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Oak Tree 15]

Ooooohhhh, this is great! Now I'm duplicitous. But still courteous.

 

And all those packs that don't have complete uniforms as their policy? Duplicitous!

 

Boys' Life climbers/editors? Duplicitous!

 

Maybe some people do ignore the rules because they are inconvenient. I think most rules that are thoughtfully overruled at the local level are done so because the leaders have judged that the rules do not achieve their intended purpose, or may actually interfere with delivering a quality program to the boys. "All you boys, stop having fun!"

 

It could be that many volunteers are actually trying to deliver the best program they can for their Scouts. I think I'll go with that assumption.

 

Oak Tree

[Bob White 20]

So in other words you aren't able to explain the behavior either so you will try to change the direction of the conversation again.

 

Why does it seem so foriegn to all but a few posters here that if you are going to teach scouts to obey the laws of the troop and community that the leaders have to follow rules and laws to and that while individuals can work to change laws they have an obligation to follow them?

 

Eamonn, Fscouter, thanks for dedication to the values of scouting to be willing to live the values you teach. I hope, that like in the council I serve, you are not the exception as we seem to be here.

 

 

[Kudu 186]

> Which rule book are you talking about?....

> The one that protects legal, licensed, property of the BSA?....

 

This rule is based on the Congressional Charter, which grants the BSA a monopoly on words like "Scouts" and "Scouting." So the government forces us to be "communist weapons dealers."

 

I would define "communist" in the sense of the state forbidding competition in a free market.

 

It is freedom that makes America great. It is the lack of this freedom in American Scouting that causes most of the BSA's problems, from the "3-Gs" to bad Uniforms.

 

As long as the BSA remains a state-sanctioned monopoly, the official Scout Uniform will ALWAYS be the worst case ugly scenario of the horrors of central planning: a hothouse indoor uniform designed by a dress designer, Oscar de la Renta.

 

Think about it: the largest outdoor youth organization in the WORLD does not manufacture an outdoor Uniform! How stupid.

 

Who but the oldest Stalinists, secure in their totalitarian power (despite their obvious senility), would not see the obvious capitalist opportunity that Scouting offers if only the BSA produced decent outdoor Uniforms at a reasonable price.

 

Seeing a group of BSA members wearing official Scout pants always reminds me of the "Soviet fashion show" pictured on those Wendy's television commercials in the 1980s.

 

The point of the ads was that innovation is the natural result of freedom in the marketplace. In a free society, consumers have the freedom to make choices, be it for comfortable clothing or Wendy's burgers.

 

In a society run by central planners, however, ugly clothing is considered a moral virtue: an outward sign of party loyalty. Of course in a totalitarian culture there is only ONE party, and people who oppose freedom of choice want to keep it that way.

 

BSA party loyalists often recommend that we wear the ugly uniform with pride while at the same time making our voice heard by "working within the system." They urge us to write letters to our Council President. To write letters to the national office. To keep writing them, not stopping when we don't get a response, and to get all of our friends and associates in Scouting to do the same.

 

This advice reminds me of my favorite scene in the film "Good Bye Lenin!"

 

The premise is that Christiane, a communist grandmother and staunch party loyalist, suffers a heart attack and falls into a coma just before the fall of the Berlin Wall. By the time she awakens, her beloved East Germany has a free market economy and is drenched in Western consumerism. Her doctors advise Christiane's son and daughter that their mother's health is still fragile and she cannot handle any shocks to her system. So as she slowly recuperates, they re-create in Christiane's bedroom the socialist world as it was when she was well.

 

Among other things, this means that before entering her bedroom, her visitors have to change out of their comfortable Western clothing and into the poorly designed pre-freedom clothing.

 

To make Christiane feel useful, her friends and relatives ask her to compose letters (as she had done in the past) to the central planners of the German Democratic Republic, petitioning them to make practical, comfortable clothing!

 

Sound familiar?

 

She writes, "Should it be our fault that our physical measurements stand in the way of your achieving planned production targets please accept our apologies. We will do everything in our power to become shorter and squarer in the future. With socialist greetings....

 

Maybe we could borrow that text when we embark on future letter-writing campaigns to the BSA central planners.

 

The BSA is a private religious corporation with a government-established, absolute monopoly on Scouting. This is fine with neo-conservatives as long as the corporation reflects their values.

 

However, a true conservative, like a libertarian, believes that freedom exists only when the government gets out of the business of picking corporate winners and losers.

 

A true conservative believes in the wisdom of the marketplace, and freedom in the marketplace of ideas.

 

So in the end, you could say that the BSA Scout pants are ugly because the BSA is not conservative enough.

 

The only solution is to stop those little communists at the door, and to send them back home if they dare to wear ugly official BSA Scout pants to Scout meetings.

 

And make sure you double-check for hidden Scout socks.

[bbng 10]

I used to automatically give the benefit of the doubt to a Scout leader who was breaking, bending, manipulating, or totally disregarding a rule, policy, method. However, in my own experience, I have learned that those who think it's ok to cut corners or pick and choose what to follow will do so in the big areas (yes, YP and safety) as well as the so-called little areas (socks--have to chuckle at how often those socks have been mentioned). Perfection is not the goal; setting the best possible example is. Using the BSA materials, this actually doesn't seem all that hard to do. >>>edited part: fixed typo & added comment

[Bob White 20]

By the way you can't call your youth group

The Kleenex Kids

Pepsi Pups

Goodyear Gang

or

Beer Nut Boys

 

Because like Scouting these names are legally protected property of others.

 

Communist plot? Hardly.

 

This is not about the uniform. It is about the chararcter (or lack of) in scout leaders who cherry pick which rules and laws to follow and which they feel they can ignore.

 

It's fascinating that the only scouters who have had actually addressed the question posed in this thread feel the same way I do, that if you are going to teach citizenship then you have to set the example by obeying rules whether they are convenient to you personally or not.

 

Everyone else has made excuses for you they breajk rules and have not addressed who they explain that duplicity to the scouts.

 

 

 

[Oak Tree 15]

Once upon a time a court jester decided to entertain the court. Orange trees grew around the castle. "I'll give 100 pieces of gold to anyone who brings me a green orange", he said.

 

Several people ran outside and picked some green oranges off the tree. They brought them in and offered them to the jester. "Ah", the jester said, "that's not a green orange. All oranges are orange."

 

Oak Tree

[Adrianvs 10]

Trevorum,

 

The utterance of Bob White which you objected to as a personal attack (ad hominem) is as follows:

 

"Choosing to ignore a rule or law that does not seek to harm anyone one simply protect property and other people simply because it doesn't suit you personally is just lazy and self centered."

 

You stated that Bob had refered to you with the clause "lazy and self-centered." Look closer at the sentence, however, and you will see that the subject of it is "Choosing to ignore a rule or law...because it doesn't suit you personally..." The subject matter of the sentence is an action. Bob White referred to an action as lazy and self-centered. While this may not be strictly proper from a grammatical standpoint, it hardly seems like a direct ad hominem (Latin: To the Man) attack. Why is it that you identified with what Bob described as "lazy and self-centered?" Do you ignore benign rules or laws simply because they don't suit you personally?

[Adrianvs 10]

There is a misconception that in approaching this issue, one must choose between two mutually exclusive options.

 

Option A: One must always follow all rules of whatever organization (which includes national laws) that one belongs to, no matter what.

 

Option B: One must only follow those rules which one deems important.

(Coincidently, followers of Option B routinely invoke common consensus on what rules they consider important [safety, etc.] as evidence of their opinion.)

 

In any event, the crux of this issue can be found in neither of these positions (one or both of which may be an artifical straw man), but in a more nuanced position that avoids the extremes of either.

 

It is my belief that if one is to knowingly and publicly (and I am not here excluding private rule breaking), break a rule of an organization to which one voluntarily belongs, one must be willing and to provide proof that the rule in question is immoral or null (by virtue of a higher rule). In either case, one must be actively working to have the rule changed and/or withdraw oneself from the organization. If one is going to break a law of the nation to which one belongs, one must provide evidence that the law in question is immoral or otherwise null.

 

Yes, we must teach the youth to make ethical decisions and yes, these decisions must be based on a more sound ethical system than just "The rules must always be followed." However, those who are invoking these truths in defense (defence, Eamonn) of a complete disregard of inconvenient rules are not sufficiently making the case. Gandhi would explain exactly WHY he was breaking any particular law or order of the British government at any given time. The same is true with any other legitimate practitioner of civil disobedience.

 

Are some rules more important than others? Of course. What that means in practice, however, is not simply a system that categorizes some areas as ignorable by everyone. Should the scout of poor means be penalized for not having official uniform pants and shorts? Of course not. In fact, no one is suggesting that he should be. That (penalization for failure to wear a complete and correct uniform) is not part of the scouting program. Should the scouter who routinely wears non-BSA socks be berated or made to feel that he is acting immorally? No. Should the Scouter of ample means who refuses to buy scout socks or pants simply because of some vague feeling of righteous rebellion feel that he is a just crusader (pardon my profanity) for truth and justice? Of course not; he is being an idiot. That scouter must examine why he refuses to participate in as a complete and correct uniform as possible and decide whether it is truly in conformity with higher ethical principles or simply his own laziness, lack of committment, or simple vanity.

 

 

Please note that the final assessment is not directed to any particular individual and is hyperbolic in nature. It may be 'ad hominem' in the broadest sense, but it is not the logical fallacy of the same name.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

[Zahnada 11]

I used to play basketball quite a bit. I also coached a youth boy's team for several years and even refereed as a paying job for awhile. I officiated boys and girls grades 6-12.

 

Moving without dribbling the ball while it is in your possession is against the rules. It is called travelling. If you break that rule and are caught, the ball is awarded to the other team (or, for those half-empty types, you are punished by losing the ball).

 

Basketball is a confusing and challenging game to officiate because it's so fast paced (much like life if you want the analogy spelled out for you). Not every travel is called. In fact, quite a few go unnoticed.

 

Have I ever travelled with the basketball? Yes. But have I ever told the kids I work with that it's okay to travel? No. Have I ever instructed a kid to intentionally foul an opponent? No. Not all the rules make sense (especially at the younger ages where they add supplementary rules), but that doesn't matter. Following the rules is the price you pay for playing the game and having fun with it. If you don't follow the rules, sooner or later you'll foul out.

 

Now, traveling is a rather small infraction of the rules with a minimal consequence (compared to fouls or punching your opponent). It doesn't matter. I still wouldn't teach a kid how to travel because it won't improve their game or their experience. If they see me or an NBA player travel (just watch 5 seconds of a game for that), I'll explain to them how that's breaking the rules and why it's really not worth the risk.

 

Do I believe analogies make a foolproof statement when applied to real life? No. Do I like this writing style of asking rhetorical questions followed by a one-word answer? No. But am I in that kind of mood? Yes.

[evmori 11]

Don't you love it when someone ask a question that has no correct answer (to the questioner) and is used to make everyone who tries to answer look like a fool?

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Ed,

That is one of the two main points here. It is a fool-proof way to divide the True Scouters from the False Scouters.

 

Oak Tree,

I counted my Scout Socks just because of this column. They fill a pretty good size drawer. I still have Scout Socks from when I was a youth. A couple of my garters are a stretched and some threads are hanging from some of the Socks that needed no support which now can be used with the stretched-out garters (* kind of a restriction band). I usually bought more than one pair so when one disappeared or had a large hole, I would still have three, to be used on odd days. I even have the new snazzy Scout Socks. Over the years these Socks have been in places that I don't care to mention, nothing illegal of course, and in places that I would love to share but that would miss the point completely. I wanted you to know that I wear my Scout Socks on a regular basis. It has been a good rule and I would recommend it to anyone in Scouting, of course. I don't find the rule cruel or unusual. I stand by it.

 

FB

[Bob White 20]

It would be easy to make this thread were about the BSA uniform regulations, but it's not. It would be easy if it were about the value of civil disobedience, but it's not. It would be easy if it were about group decisions or about customizing rules to the troop you serve, but its not. It would be even easier if it were about other people's values, but it is not. All these avenues used by posters have been attempts to avoid the topic and not have to confront the real question.

 

The question at hand which nearly everyone avoided except for eamonn and FScouter was about how YOU personally expect scouts to follow your troop rules when you admittedly do not follow the rules of the BSA or those of your community.

 

If you allow yourself permission to ignore rules that do not suit you personally then how can you puniSh scouts who knowingly violate troop rules?

 

Then on the bigger picture, how can you teach good citizenship when you put yourself above the laws that others everyone is expected to follow. You do not have to agree with laws to be bound to them. Our system of government, in and out of scouting, is based on a repeublic governed by elected representatives. A part of good citizenship is obeying the laws that our elected officials pass. No one promised you you would agree with every law, but the expectation of compliance is an obligation we accept as citizens.

 

But it seems for many represented here that obligation only exists if you might get caught, or if there was a chance of punishment.

 

BSA regulations exist for two primary reasons, to provide structure and direction to the program, To protect members and property of the BSA. There are no uniform police, there is seldom punishment for scouters who break rules. There is an expectation of character and values among those who volunteer that they will self regulate their behavior. Who would have thought that adult scouters would choose to ignore rules for their personal pleasure?

 

We have seen many examples here, not only in uniforming but membership, avancement, youth protection, even in community laws. How can you expect scouts to accept the Scout Law seriously, or to take troop rules seriously, when their leadership is so cavalier about what rules they personaaly choose to accept and which ones they purposely ignore and violate.

 

Just because there is no punishment does not mean there is no penalty. While you might not be penalized you do harm to the development of the the scouts. Your actions are not unnoticed by the boys.

 

"To keep my self morally straight" that was the promise we take. How can you ignore the rules of your communities in and out of scouting and still keep this promise/

[Hunt 11]

Bob White writes:

"So the line of distinction for then Hunt is the ability to be caught and punished.

Do you then feel no obligation to follow rules where punishment is avoidable? How about when you play a bord game with your kids? Certainly they probably couldn't catch you at it, and even if they did they can't punish you. So are you willing to cheat in a game with your children?

If not them how about your spouse. How about your spouse. If you knew you would not get caught. OR if you knew she would not punish you, would you cheat on your spouse?

Do you follow rules out of duty to yourself and your personal character or do you only follow rules out of concern for punishment?

Ever wonder what it means to be morally straight?"

 

Folks, is it OK if I interpret this as a personal insult? Bob, if you go back and read my posts, you'll find that you have grossly misinterpreted what I said. I said nothing about how I personally respond to rules and laws. What I said was that I believe most people can distinguish between signficant and insignificant violations of rules, and they can moderate their response appropriately. Thus, for example, if my son were to come home thirty seconds after his curfew, my response would be quite different from my response if he came home two hours after curfew. There are rule violations that are, essentially, just not a big deal (I think this is why we keep mentioning socks). No, you don't teach youth that it's OK to violate the rules, but some violations are so minor that you just don't react to them.

Your suggestion that I think a rule need only be obeyed if you might get caught and punished also has no relation to what I said. What I said was that in determining whether a rule should be considered an important one, a relevant factor is whether the makers of that rule bother to enforce it. Personally, I am not going to judge whether another person is morally straight or not based on whether they comply with every law, ordinance, and rule to the tiniest degree, because I think it's not that simple.

 

By the way, when my children were little, I did sometimes cheat when I played games with them. I sometimes let them win.