fred8033

KC9DDI ... Your line-by-line snarky response isn't useful. KC9DDI wrote: "I wonder if there's a cause-and-effect relationship buried in there somewhere?" Could be or not. But I know plenty of atheists and gay scouters inside scouting who focus on program and not on the politics. I also know plenty of people who choose not to be in scouting because of the politics. It's the ones who choose not to be involved and then daily throw gernades at those trying to do something good that's hurtful. KC9DDI wrote: "How else can the BSA (or US Scouting in general) improve, unless it's weaknesses are identified?" Are you so naive to think they are not identified and known? Come on. It's about social protest techniques to reduce the effectiveness of a group until things change. It's about hijacking discussions to focus on key hot bed topics. KC9DDI wrote: "It's not an "internal issue" because of the established discriminatory policies which keep certain people external to Scouting." You clearly wanted to misunderstand. It's not internal because scouting doesn't teach sexuality and the faith components are optional. If anything, scouting exists to support what the family teaches. KC9DDI wrote: "In other words, you want diversity in forum posts, but not in membership?" What I want is written earlier. Instead of trying to understand what I wrote, you choose to call me a hypocrite. Nice. It's not worth replying as I suspect you'll only see what you want to see. Dude, go pick a fight with someone else.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

drmbear ... IMHO, your exactly who this forum is looking for as participants, a scouter who's looking for support and to make scouting better. This old "systematic political agenda" thread was re-opened because I realized in another thread one of the posters had 3500+ posts over ten years, all on one topic, BSA discriminization. He's a member on scoutingforall.org and an atheist social networking site. And, he's not even a scouter. He's just hear to tell us what BSA is doing wrong. Discussions get hijacked from interesting subjects to just focus yet again on the same worn out topic. Now many of us wish BSA would get out of these political firestorms as it's not really an internal issue in scouting. There are some easy policy changes BSA could make to avoid the issues, such as BSA focusing on program structure and leaving membership choices to the charter orgs ... as they mostly do already. BUT, it's a different thing to troll daily for the opportunity to post the evils of BSA. If ya want to do that, then also post your favorite dutch oven recipes. Or your favorite camping treks. Or which boots allow your feet to breath and also protect you ankles. Or how to handle scout medical forms. Or tell us about when a wind storm snapped the fiberglass tent poles. Just don't be a one act play that's repeated over and over and over again.

If the section is not working for him, put "SEE ATTACHMENT ******" and write it in a separate document that you attach. He probably needs to do that anyway for diagrams and the final plan shopping list. The material, supply and tool lists are okay for the proposal section, but too short for the final plan. I'm coaching a scout using it right now. It seems to be working really well. Most fields shrink the font nicely, but some such as the work process area had to be a separate document. It wasn't needed for the approvals. It was needed to avoid any "magical thinking" that it would just work or just happen. I should mention that I love the new workbook. It's well structured and very well thought out. The proposal section and proposal approvals seem to really add consistency and control to getting a project started. Too many times it would take scouts months to get project approval. My big fear is that scouts won't do a good job on the final plan since it's not required and not required to be shown to the EBOR. I'm glad it's not required, but any scout not addressing those final topics in the final plan is planning to fail.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I agree that using "myth" on people's personal faith when in direct conversation with them is not about conversation. It's about using a loaded word and making a cheap shot. ... Beavah wrote: "Yah, but then I'm not sure all UUA's consider themselves Christian, eh?". Wow. I never realized that. I had to look it up. From the uua.org web site... "In addition to holding different beliefs on spiritual topics, individual Unitarian Universalists may also identify with and draw inspiration from Atheism and Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Paganism, and other religious or philosophical traditions." Unitarian Unversalists don't even necessarily believe in a God. It also says: "Unitarian Universalists generally agree that "human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth."" Not so much a religion as a dialectic group searching for truth. Interesting. Learn something every day.

Thanks for the follow up. It sounds like the scout is finishing on a positive note. That's good. Any other discussion is moot. I hope he was given more options than finding a different troop. But, it's moot now as he turns 18 soon and then will be moving onto the military academy. I don't really care for the quote you listed. It rings of a truism that white-washes the situation. I believe it's more the end of the scout's journey is about what the scout wants it to be about. It's the scouts responsibility to make it happen and the leaders role to support their dreams. But, it's moot now. All scouts eventually leave scouting and at least he's leaving on a positive note. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

I requested my post be deleted. I should not have done that. I reacted wrongly to my discovery. It wasn't really "outing" as there was nothing to out. His information was directly linked thru fireside theater and his name directly used on ScoutingForAll.org and Atheist Nexus. It was more of a personal enlightenment that I shared. I reacted the same way I reacted when I learned a relatively new friend only invited me over to bring me into his Amway network. I was thinking we were all scouters here discussing our scouting experiences. It was wrong of me. I should not have posted direct names or links. I hope the site admin can delete them.

Merlyn - I should apologize. About an hour ago, I emailed the site admin requesting my posts to be deleted. I should not have called you out by name. It's wrong. My apologies. I hope the admin has a chance to delete my two posts. ... "I don't see how you conclude I'm a "main poster" on atheist nexus, I've posted about 7 things back in 2009. " Your right. I didn't realize that when I googled to the site. I thought it was your site. I didn't realize it was more like a MySpace or Facebook for atheists.(This message has been edited by fred8033) Fred's previous post has been deleted (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Great question! I'm looking too.

I'm not saying everything modern is not automatically better. Generally I agree people are people. On the committee side, I'll agree depth/skill/support is a bit less as I believe people are a more mobile, busier and less connected with their immediate community. I'm just saying today's leaders have been exposed to more educational opportunities and ideas. People are also a bit less naive on critical topics. An obvious one is youth protection. The issue isn't new. But leaders today understand youth protection, what to look for and how to run a safer program. I believe leaders today might be a bit more sensitive of other issues and a little less likely to just take an attitude of "get over it". I think the better question is which leadership style is more effective. Maybe a less reflective, less sensitive, wack on the head, Darwinian "get over it" leader produces a better scouts. I'm not sure. But I do believe today's leaders are as good as those in the past and better in some areas.

Does the thread question match the point of interest? For example, I believe today's school teachers are the best that's ever existed, but I also yearn, at times, for the old days when teachers would wack a mouthy student. I fully believe that, at the appropriate time, a bit of quick immediate pain can be more effective, less traumatic and less damaging than the bureaucratic BS and extended bad behavior tolerated in today's society. BUT, I also would not want to go back. "Are today's scout leaders as good as the ones in the past?" I absolutely believe they are. I believe the commitment and concern for the scouts has not changed. The big difference is that the current leaders are better trained and more safety conscious. The training might not be just scout training, but also through school, college or other professional growth. I just believe we have a great set of scout leaders today. BUT that might not be the right question to ask.

I wouldn't mention the phone calls. That would put a person on the defensive and won't help. I'm sure he knows the issues and probably looking for help too.

Myth... Interesting debate. LOL.... The theory that the 25th was borrowed from pagan rituals is also a myth. I'm not a Bible scholar, but from what I've read the first mention of Dec 25th / Jan 6th was around 250 to 300 AD. The 1st written association between the dates was not until a commentator commented on it in 1200 AD. By 1200 AD, Christians had started adopting some pagan practices in their celebrations (Christmas trees???, other). Then there's the whole shift of the calendars (Gregorian, Julian, ...). (i.e. the 12 days of Christmas). Eventually I get lost. But it is a simplistic myth that Dec 25th is just an adoption of a pagan holiday. Bible scholars I've read recognize the pagan theory as popular myth. Though Christians did not live in isolation, none of the extensive written debate from that era mentions that reasoning. Also, most Christmas pagan traditions didn't get adopted until almost a thousand years later. Did it influenced? I don't know. Was it the only or main reason? No. The Bible does have some hints on the date (Luke 1), but it's not precise. Ultimately, the dates are chosen by man and chosen to honor God's gifts. That's really all that's important. On a personal note.... Whether your a Christian, traditionalist or a structuralist, I'll leave that to you. But don't look down on others beliefs. That happened in an evangelical church that my wife happily attended. The only good that happened is that it made me reflect, research and pray and return to my Catholic heritage. Once I understood the teachings, I had to confess my Catholic faith.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Just do it as a friend who's working toward the same goal he. But have the conversation and soon and find a solution. It sounds like his responsibilities have significantly increased since the previous CC left. It's important to remember that though pack leadership roles appear to have specific responsibilities, it's not official. It's more like here's a bunch of people and what can we do to get the job done.

By the way "Back in 1966...". Ummm... I meant "Back in 1996". I'm old, but not that old.

What people forget is that the "payroll taxes" were essentially designed as "insurance" premiums. Social security was "Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance". Payroll taxes are "FICA" which is "Federal Insurance...". ... So what is it? INSURANCE ... If you believe it's insurance, then ... If the insurance is underfunded, you raise the premium pretty much on everyone. GENERAL BENEFIT ... Then everyone should get the same monthly S.S. payment whether you paid payroll taxes on $110k of income or $25k of income. But then you have other major major economic issues to address. ... Now if you raise the taxable cap, do you also raise the limit they use to calculate benefits. Right now, when figuring SS payments, the max income in the calculation is $110k. If you raise the taxable amount, do you raise the max the benefit is calculated at? ... The other thing is these taxes have been going up for years. I'm not sure how many people realize that. Back in 1966, I did my own company taxes. I remember parts of FICA being capped at $67K. Each year it slowly increased until I believe there is no limit now since 1994. That's a huge revenue increase! Also, there's another pending increase about to happen. Currently, it is 2.9%, individual plus company match. Starting in 2013, it is 2.9% up to $200K (single) or $250k (married). Over that, it's 3.8%. The key is the effective payroll taxes have been going up for decades. ... I just get tired of the class warfare arguements. It's just a bunch of hate mongering where the 99% blaming their bad times on the a smaller group. Personally, I'd rather see medicare go away and just create a national health coverage program for all US citizens. ... I should also admit I hate the idea of passing a bill that only extends things two months. That is an incredibly expensive way of doing things. If I remember my readings, "how long" is one of the points of difference. ... I don't know the right answer, but I am tired of the blame game.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Jay - Can you "scan" that treatise in for us?

The power point presentation actually reminds me a lot of my learning as I learned about advancement, but I agree that it is just too long. It is better suited as the outline for a 30 page paper. Here's a wild suggestion. How about cutting it down to about 10 to 12 slide. One slide for each sub-section of section 8 (BORs) in the Guide To Advancement. For the handout, give them a printed copy of section 8 of the GTA. Don't bother covering the ugly stuff (over 18, disputed BOR, appeals, ...) http://scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf Don't bother trying to create yet another summary. Get them to start reading what BSA publishes. That's ultimately what most of us hope starts happening (i.e. people start following BSA publications and not just repeating troop traditions). Heck, if you get them to read GTA section 8, maybe they will wonder what the other sections cover and read them too. In any event, nice job on the learning and the effort. That was not easy and reflects a lot of thinking about what's supposed to happen.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

dlearyous wrote: "Why does it state that a Scout shall not be responsible for requesting that a board take place?" I think this comes from both the Boy Scout Handbook and also Guide To Advancement section 8.0.0.2. "When he believes he has completed all the requirements, including a Scoutmaster conference, it is up to the unit leader and committee to assure a board of review is held. There might be some leeway for interpretation, but the next GTA sentence is: "Scoutmasters, for example, do not have authority to expect a boy to request one, or to defer him, or to ask him to perform beyond the requirements in order to be granted one."

Basementdweller - We just charge everyone the same and believe it all washes out to be fair in the end. For us, we decided that keeping it simple was more fair. But that's our pack and not a general rule. ... The trouble with dues is that there's never really a balance. It's not a scout account. It goes into a general fund to be used to cover pack expenses. If other packs share the dues of people who transfer out of their pack, it's only through their good graces. There is no obligation.

I often get confused as to which comes first. OA as an honor society or OA as a brotherhood of cheerful service. It's clear OA is more about ceremonials then activities. But is that bad? - How about an OA only event at summer camp? Say the normal bed time is 10pm. At that time, OA members silently leave camp and head to a special issolated camp fire program only for them. Of course with treats, fun and other perks to make it special.

"silent member" ... Great! That's an excellent way to communicate a core aspect of adult leadership.

Sasha - Good luck. These situations are never fun. ... Side discussion... twocubdad wrote: "When I was pack CC we had a Webelos II den of about four boys which refuesd to pay pack dues. The DL felt since they had already paid the BSA dues they didn't need to pay for the six or seven months until crossover (she was a bit wacko, never really understood what her issue was.) " We've had those too. We usually resolved it by discussing pack expenses. The Webelos years are very expensive to the pack. My 1st pack only charged 50% for the 2nd Webelos year because it was half a year and they were not rechartered to the pack. BUT, then I started seeing the expense reports. The Webelos years are expensive. Our pack has very few expenses for advancements for Tiger, Wolf and Bear ranks ... except belt loops. Webelos is expensive with $1.69 per pin. Plus special shoulder colors. Rank badge. Arrow of Light badge. Scout book. Graduation arrows (if pack purchases them). And belt loops too. I get a kick out of your solution. If a whole den refuses to pay dues, then let them purchase and coordinate their own advancements. I'd work like heck to avoid that situation, but I do like it.

Are your dues relatively small? Less then $150. Is your pack at all financially healthy? If so, make the problem go away. It's fighting a losing battle, distracting and wasting time over what is probably a minor amount of money. The key is that trying to fairly resolve the situation just promotes hard feelings and prolongs a really bad situation. Wave their dues for the year and swallow the cost. Then, you can focus on the fun of scouting. At least it sounds like the council is willing to register them not at your cost. That's great. My answer depends on the health of your pack finances. If at all healthy, make the issue go away and not talk about it. The most important thing is to get this family having a positive scouting experience. By waving the dues, you'll win their gratitude. You can ask the other pack for a refund, but their position is probably that the family choose to leave. Not their issue. Dues are not like a deposit into a scout account. If you had thirty families in this situation, my answer would have been different. At least it sounds like the district is familiar with the issue. Hopefully, they can pay some attention to the other pack and maybe provide some training, guidance, advice or other.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

basementweller - Nice post. I think it works the same way at the district level.

"one person cannot or will not change the Good old boys club or status quo. " That's just not my experience. Scouters are volunteers and welcome new volunteers to keep the program going. My experience is district/council has plenty of holes to fill and are always looking for people to help, new energy, new enthusiasm and fresh ideas. A few committees like advancement tend to want to know the people pretty well first before welcoming volunteers. But even there, they are always looking for good volunteers to help. The accused "Good old boys clubs" or "political problems" tend to be more human interaction issues. And usually occur when someone's already doing a job and the group is generally happy. Then, someone steps in saying it should be done differently. It offends people and can start labeling past hard work and successes as failures. The challenge is how to make change. ... and to know when to step back and recognize the values of how it's being done now. ... For myself, three years ago there were two issues at district that kept bugging me. I volunteered for one and have been doing it for three years now. The other I got to know the people involved and worked for a change. And it eventually happened. When I think of significant changes at district level in the last three years, I'm proud to say that I've helped drive a good number of them. I don't care who gets the knot or the formal recognition. I just enjoy being part of the group (and a fair bit of joking around when we socialize). ... As for council supporting units, that's another discussion. Most ways councils do support units but there are a few very visible thorns.(This message has been edited by fred8033)