HICO_Eagle

Oak Tree, I guess I just don't see it as fuzzy as you but a great deal of my training biases me toward sequential and transitive logic. First you establish a group or list of people or organizations to which you have a bond or obligation. That's the group you owe loyalty to so be loyal. Pretty simple. Who does a Scout owe loyalty to? His family. His friends. His troop. His country. His God (or whatever deity he is reverent toward). Anyone else he has an obligation toward. Perhaps others -- and not necessarily in the order I've listed. Same thing goes with the other points of the Law. This is basically the same way I learned it and the same way I've taught it for 20+ years. It only gets into a semantic discussion when someone starts quibbling because they want an excuse for violating the principle but don't want to be held accountable. My biggest beef with the term "aspirational goals" is that it seems to be a New Age way of saying they can violate the Law and Oath but not feel bad about it -- sort of like Clinton arguing about the meaning of "is" -- which is precisely what's wrong with contemporary society.

I voted thumbs up (no surprise since I actually initiated the request to close one of the threads). The two threads in particular were getting way out of hand IMHO. I've only been reading these forums for the past year or so and generally they're great. There is only one individual that I've decided to just not bother reading anymore -- I wish the ignore feature worked on thread postings but I'll just ignore manually. As for the rest, I learned a long time ago to filter postings by what I've seen of past postings. As is so often in life, there are very few people I agree or disagree with 100% (including myself) and learning flows from multi-way discussion. I put links to other sources for a reason. I don't want someone thinking I'm cherry-picking quotes or quoting out of context but that only works if they actually follow the link and do some reading themselves. Otherwise it's just talking past each other which is where I saw about half of the AGW thread going. As for the other thread ... I think it's clear some of us just aren't going to agree so rather than raise blood pressure and vitriol, I think I'm just going to avoid related threads.

Perhaps Scouting is on the verge of change, I just hope it's the right change. At least half of all change is in the wrong direction and Scouting ceases to stay true to its core if it changes too much which I believe will have an even worse effect on membership. Take the outdoors out of Scouting and you're left with a shell of a program. Remove parts of the Oath and Law or make them optional (or "aspirational") and we are just padding resumes instead of building character. Personally, I think Scouting needs to stay true to its heritage and promise. It's one of the few institutions left in America that hasn't succumbed to the decay some call progress -- which is why it's so frequently under attack by those who despise America's traditions and heritage. Surveys can be wonderful useful sources of information. They can also quite frequently be ephemeral wisps changing on a moments notice, read however the reader wishes in accordance with his or her predetermined desire.

Scoutfish, I contend it's relatively easy to decide if the words mean anything to the Scout. Does the Scout truly attempt to live by them? Some Scouts have an harder time than others for purely biological or physiological conditions but there aren't that many that genuinely suffer from these conditions. In general, you can tell whether they are truly living by the Oath and Law or not through their conduct. My troop took a cavalcade at Philmont on one of my last outings with them as SM. One of our older boys was a Life Scout working on Eagle but his conduct during the cavalcade was NOT living by the Scout Oath and Law. I discussed this with my Troop Committee Chair (who was also on the cavalcade), COR and his parents and all agreed it was inappropriate to schedule him for a BOR. We then called him down (we had held this discussion in his parents' family room) and discussed the situation with him. He started alluding to how he was going to be different when he was Eagle so I stopped him short and told him he had it wrong. Eagle rank flows from Scoutlike conduct not vice-versa. I further told him that if we had a formal SM conference or BOR that night he'd have flunked but we weren't denying him the Eagle rank, we were giving him additional time to show he deserved it. It took him a moment but it sank in. His conduct DID start shaping up before I had to move a couple months later but I was later informed by the TCC that not only did he successfully complete Eagle but turned out to be one of our better Eagles including extensive involvement after earning the award. My point in this anecdote was that we all believed the Oath and Law stood for something then. The Scout learned they were not "aspirational" but actually stood for something. I still believe they stand for something.

Can we close and lock this thread now? This has devolved into a debate about whether allowing gays in would be desirable and various personal attacks despite Oak Tree's original request. There are numerous unScoutlike exchanges going on right now and I think it would best to just lock this topic and give everyone a breather.

"The rise in ocean levels is not up for debate. Is a dollars and cents issue that the US Government identified in a paper from FEMA in 1991 Projected Impact of Relative Sea Level Rise on the National Flood Insurance Program and an EPA piece from 1989 entitled The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States. Report to Congress. Appendix B: Sea Level Rise. This has been a topic for over 20 years." I'd say it IS up for debate. The FEMA report is an impact assessment ASSUMING the sea levels rise as projected in 1990. In the 1990s, TOPEX and JASON did record a minor global mean sea level rise -- 4 cm from 1994 - 2006 -- but that rise has flattened out since 2006. Call it 2 inches over the last 15 years if you want to round up and ignore the flattening. Heck, round it up further to a rate of 1 inch per decade; that's a 3 inch rise over 30 years, less than a foot over the next century. That beachfront property is hardly in danger. In fact, many areas of beachfront property show a minor mean sea level DECREASE -- this is because a great deal of the mean sea level increase is coming from a relatively small geographic area east of the Philippines and Papua New Guinea. Check the data yourself at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ "Whats going on now is corrective action is gearing up that will not be easy to digest. It will be a shock to the system and for many, a change in the way we live. However left unchecked the impact would be a civilazation changer.no more Mardi Gras." What's going on now is debatable but "shock to the system" and "civilazation changer" [sic] are definitely extreme exaggerations.

Oak Tree, I don't see how you're saying the values are defined to be aspirational. I'm glad the new Scout Handbook brought back the example definitions but they are hardly aspirational (pages 24-25): ----- What the Scout Law Means The Scout Law will show you how to live as a boy and as a man. A Scout is trustworthy. A Scout tells the truth. HE is honest, and he keeps his promises. People can depend on him. A Scout is loyal. A Scout is loyal to those to whom loyalty is due. A Scout is helpful. A Scout cares about other people. He helps others without expecting payment or reward. He fulfills his duties to his family by helping at home. ... ---- ... and it continues. Nothing "aspirational" about them. They're pretty definite. They don't say "a Scout tries to keep his promises except when they're inconvenient." They say "a Scout keeps his promises." Period. The same goes with the Scout Oath: "Do all you can to live by the Scout Oath, even when you are faced with difficult challenges." I just don't see how you read those as aspirational rather than definite.

Perhaps you show "A Time to Tell" ONCE for the New Scout Patrol whenever you have a bunch of new scouts. I'd rather explain the video to new parents and offer it to them on loan if they want to take it up with their sons -- or really any of their children. I can tell you I would have detested being made to watch that video more than once as a Scout -- in fact, I wouldn't have been too happy about even spending the time to watch it once but I've always been assertive enough that I wouldn't have been a victim. The only way I can see making Scouts watch that more than once would be if they were learning disabled and had a high risk of forgetting or not understanding it.

The Law is a code of conduct. While I expect anyone human to have occasional lapses, I think the term "aspirational goal" takes away the pressure to sincerely TRY to live up the Law. I agree 100% with GAHB on this point and it's one aspect of modern moral relativism that I find repugnant -- especially when I see it in Scout units. In the example GAHB cited about a SPL lying to his BOR about completing a requirement, I'd have finished the BOR right there: "I'm sorry son, that's not demonstrating Scout spirit in your daily life. Let's try this again in a couple of months."

mmhardy, you might want to rethink taking anything on Wikipedia at face value, especially over this issue. William Connolley and his surrogate Kim Pederson have actively revised any article even touching on AGW to promote their agenda. The issue of his misuse of administrative privileges (ostensibly over other topics) is under review right now. If you look at the data at the University of Colorado (who analyze the data from TOPEX/JASON), not only was the 1990s-era rise in sea levels nothing to worry about, it has actually flattened in the past few years. I am tired of mudwrestling with the pig but I ran across the following quote: "However, in general "scientific consensus" is not related whatsoever to scientific truth as countless examples in history have shown. "Consensus" is a political term, not a scientific term." This comes from the bottom of page 11 of the peer-reviewed paper "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics", Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Jan 6 2009. The paper is quite readable but long (115 pages). You can download a copy from http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf . Arxiv.org is Cornell Library's online archive of scientific and technical research papers.

Can't say I've ever bothered to run the total but our small troop usually averages 20-30 nights a year -- a little less this past year for a variety of reasons. Since 1991? Hmm... I was away for 10 of those years but we were doing about 35-40 nights a year before I moved away, think they kept an average of 25-30 during the years I was away. I'll have to check with the troop records to see if we have a total since 1991.

I don't know who said all homosexuals are pedophiles on this board, I've never seen it here. I doubt that's a commonly held view, but it's a common strawman thrown out by the homosexual lobby to get around having to argue the simple math that increasing the number of male with an attraction to males is going to increase incidents. That's a warrantless risk being pushed by a politically powerful group that seeks not tolerance but embrace as mainstream. Either way, this guy should be sent away for a very long time if he's guilty.

I for one would be reluctant to conduct such training myself. What I WOULD do -- may in fact raise in committee this month -- is offer the materials to parents. I find these incidents rather upsetting because of the long term damage to the program. Perverts like this are WHY we have YPT and YP guidelines. To answer Gern's question, I don't think the ban on gays is complete protection (after all, this guy flew under the radar by being married and having kids but his conduct was homosexual by definition) but it helps lower the risk. Life is a stochastic process so I don't think the risk will ever be zero but that shouldn't keep us from doing what we can.

"We just don't understand enough, eh? And from where I sit, the large majority of the critics fall into that category. Uninformed folks from outside da field who are pushin' an agenda for political or personal gain." We must be reading different sources. I have exactly the opposite reaction. The large majority of critics that I read DO understand enough or could if proponents would release the raw data. AGW has failed to meet the mark in my eyes for the past 20 years precisely because I feel I DO understand the science and it frequently fails the laugh test. AGW proponents like Al Gore are the ones who are uninformed and don't understand and even informed ones like Schneider/Mann/Jones/Briffa are pushing their agenda for political or personal gain EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW THEY ARE MISLEADING. This seems to be precisely why they refuse to release raw data, obfuscate to avoid FOIA requests and even delete data to avoid having to hand it out.

Beavah -- I'm trying to locate my link to the original graphs but the original head and founder of the CRU was a profound skeptic of the GHG hypothesis until he died. His original reconstruction of ancient climates -- a reconstruction that was supported by historical and geologic records (which Jones, Mann et al seek to ignore or rewrite out of history) -- showed the MWP was roughly 8-10 C (15-20 F) degrees higher than today. People want to talk about permafrost thawing now? There are Norse graves in Greenland which are STILL buried under ice. The ground sure wasn't frozen much less covered by ice when those graves were dug. The real risks come from imposing dramatic punitive measures chasing scientific phantoms. That's not a conservative camp, it's a radical camp. Conserve energy and reduce waste but do them because we're conservationists, because there are national security risks from our dependence on foreign resources, etc. -- NOT because of junk science and con men. Mann and Jones don't seem to be expert at anything but media hype and milking public funds; software engineers analyzing Ian Harris's code are appalled at the sloppy code; the litany goes on. Follow the money. This graph depicts Phil Jones' grant income. Notice the spike after he became a shrill proponent of AGW? http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/image1.jpg Oh, and for what it's worth? GHB is right about how Dodds and Frank pushed the housing and mortgage markets into failure. Things started going south right after they pushed an expanded view of the Community Reinvestment Act and the Clinton administration started growing Fannie and Freddy to feed an artificial housing bubble. Go back and look at all the financial articles predicting problems in the housing market in '98 and '99 -- as well as the Bush administration warnings in 2002 and 2003 (which Frank pooh-poohed).

Eagle92, I can understand why that bugs you. I judge people's KSA based on their demonstrated performance, not their age (or their documented training). Now that I have both age AND experience (wouldn't mind it if I had a little less of the former), I would immediately dump on someone who tried to make a statement about someone else's KSA based on age.

Beavah, I'll go further than vol_scouter on this. When you look at what exactly CRU, GISS and GHCN have done to the temperature measurements so many people are basing their judgment on, it DOES call into question whether AGW even exists. The graph at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/05/december-uah-global-temperature-anomaly-down-by-almost-half/ only shows the last 30 years so one would almost be inclined to "see" an upward slope as claimed by the AGW proponents but if one looks carefully, you can see a leveling off and even a downward trend starting around 2006. You see this again in http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/cru-3b-urban-warm-bias-in-ghcn/ which also demonstrates the urban heat island skewing in the numbers GHCN has been releasing. http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/04/difference-in-yamal-versions-not-insignificant/ shows how CRU misled the editors of Science on how they assembled tree core data and hid the fact that there were significant differences. http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/01/sent-loads-of-station-data-to-scott/ shows how Jones freely shared with "friendly" colleagues that he claimed was confidential when requested by skeptics. See for Burt Rutan's take on AGW and the "analysis" behind it. I have seen similar questions from Australians who've looked at the ABoM pronouncements and compared them to actual measurements at stations like Darwin. Will try later to locate them for direct quotation but I have to jet off to work right now.

BadenP, I don't understand why you have to mock BDPT00 that way just because you disagree with him. He's already stated several times why he doesn't agree with this idea so he HAS presented a logical reasoned argument -- it just happens to be one you disagree with. I for one haven't seen any good reasons presented on why the Insignia Guide and policy should be amended. It's not going to bug me much if a few individuals choose to rebel but it doesn't mean I agree with them.

No Merlyn, vol_scouter, GHB, myself and many others have repeatedly backed up our statements with facts, figures, studies -- not to mention we all demonstrate a familiarity with REAL science that you clearly lack. I even gave you specific items (and sources!) to research yourself so you could be sure I wasn't quoting out of context. You have shown repeatedly that you don't understand the culture, terminology or processes -- all while professing to respect science. I could readily anticipate your actions as a stubborn ideologue from other threads where you demonstrated this pattern of behavior but I really don't understand your persistence in a discussion where you are so clearly out of your league. Spew as much vaporous ramblings as you want, it won't give your arguments any more substance or fix the basic problems of: - sensitivity exceeding data precision in most of the models (1% sensitivity with data error margins at 5+%) - inadequacies of using proxies that aren't (Briffa tree ring studies, misuse of primary component analysis in dendropaleoclimatology) - revisionist history trying to do away with the MWP and LIA and minor warm period during the 1930s/40s (Mann, Santer and Jones, possibly also Wigley) - rank cherry-picking/withholding/distortion of data (Briffa Yamal tree rings/Jones et al/Schmidt & Wigley "homogenization" of GISS station data) - unethical manipulation of the peer review process (Mann, Jones et al) Getting back on track as OGE advised weeks ago, how about you provide some reasonable explanations of the problems we have noted? Please be specific as we have and avoid the ad hominems and strawman arguments raised over on RealClimate.org.

I'm one of those who has never been able to wear my Eagle badge because I wasn't able to have my Court of Honor until after I finished my freshman year in college (and had turned 18). I've worn the square knot ever since then and am okay with that. I was a Scout during the late 70s/early 80s and contrary to so many others here, I can't recall seeing any Eagles wearing their badges over the age of 18. Perhaps it's because I was essentially on hiatus from Scouting while I was in college (I attended some meetings during the summer of freshman and sophomore years but not as many as I would have liked to), perhaps it was just that we didn't have that many 18-25 year olds active in Scouting in my council. When I see an adult with a Scout rank badge, I quietly remind them it's not approved in the BSA uniform guidelines. Most don't know these things and I've never run into anyone who took offense. There are an awful lot of people (including Eagle Scouts) who have never read the Insignia Guide. As for those who would knowingly violate this rule ... I disagree with them but it just doesn't bother me that much. There are certainly worse violations in Boy Scouts or even in Boy Scout uniforming. There are plenty of other ways to show the Scouts you're an Eagle. You can still wear the Eagle belt buckles or neckerchiefs. In my experience, boys and other adults learn very quickly who the Eagles are.

"BSA's focus should be quality over quantity." I agree with the general intent but the problem with it is you're assuming the BSA training actually increases quality. I contend a lot of the new training may NOT and I don't think it's in BSA's long term interest to drive potential leaders away. I am all for continuing to offer optional training and a few mandatory courses like YPT but would rather evaluate an individual's need for most of the courses and encourage them to take it if applicable. It seems to me BSA is being taken over by professional educators who confuse checking a box with actually improving the product (Scout leaders).

vol_scouter, Oh, you didn't miscategorize or offend me. I'm far from "the left" -- I just didn't think others on this board who ARE liberal or left-wing but reasonable deserved to be lumped in with the handful of obtuse ideologues who do nothing but launch ad hominems and make strawman arguments. Some people have such poor reasoning skills they don't realize the Freedom of Association cuts many ways, that they have the right to try to set up their own organization rather than try to badger and distort BSA to accept their values and priorities, that a private organization is exactly that -- private -- regardless of whether Congress saw fit to recognize its good works and benefits to society with a charter, etc. Some people's command of the English language is so poor they don't realize "tolerance" is not synonymous with "acceptance" or "celebration". Let's face it, some people have such open minds their brains fell out years ago.

Merlyn said: "Would excluding blacks from scouting decrease in a statistically significant manner, the number of thefts?" That seems pretty clear-cut in analogizing theft with the crime vol_scouter was referring to. vol_scouter, you really don't need to generalize your point to "the left". There are some specific hard core left-wingers here who argue obtusely but I don't think it applies universally to "The Left". Your question about a statistically significant increase is inconvenient so you flat-out won't get an answer to it from any of the ideologues.

I don't know mdsummer45 or the veracity of her story but before everyone goes passing judgment, it's just possible she has had more important and pressing matters in the past month or two. We've only had a couple of the most major family holidays in the last six weeks and if her story was true, she was likely burning down the telephone lines trying to call and get updates herself before 2009 drew to a close. It's often quite hard to get ahold of people in the office during this time of year ...

Eagle92, do you have a reference for that? I -- like OGE -- have only ever seen POR used in reference to Scout positions for advancement purposes. Adults DO have positions, sometimes with responsibility, but I have never heard the term POR used with adult positions in my 20+ years of being an adult Scouter.