packsaddle

Hello ScoutLass, I just noticed where you're from. My daughter used to regularly get peed on by tigers where you are. She had a blast. Me, I was astonished by the craziness of 'Hoopfest'. But it stands reason considering the school and everything....

Concernedparent, I hope that you will bring to us your or your Scoutmaster's decision or resolution to this. Thanks for sharing, I hope your sons continue to have fun.

"Why do we even discuss "right from wrong?" If indeed we are simply primates, then are only concern would be food, shelter, and reproduction. There would be, in essence no need for a moral code." I'm not sure why you modify the term with 'simply'. We are primates. That is a matter of definition. There is nothing particularly controversial or 'wrong' with being a primate. It just IS what we are. Moreover I have no idea how your logic follows then, that we cannot thereby discuss right from wrong or that there is no need for a moral code. Are you advocating that there ISN'T a need for a moral code? The next question you state, "If we have a moral code or ideal, what informs it?", has an easy answer. We do. That's why we discuss these things. We're not 'simply' primates. We have the ability to think about these things and decide for ourselves what is best. So we do.

"does a public vote held under severe duress ever really make science?" Answer: NO "People have been trained for at least one generation now to discount their moral and religious views as (somehow) illegitimate bases for one's political views." Your reasoning? Has the 'Tea Party' heard this news? "People also have been trained NOT to cause dissension with others around them: it's "inappropriate" or impolite or incorrect to disagree." Which explains the lack of argument and dissension in these threads. "I'm not a little disgruntled that our majestic universities, funded with millions of dollars, are unable to really shed light on homosexuality and pedophilia. Science hasn't provided much in the way of answers." Does this mean you're only a teeny weeny bit disgruntled or a huge amount disgruntled? What 'light' is it that you want shed on homosexuality? Pedophilia? How much funding do you know of that has gone into research on those questions? Who did the research? What fraction of all research at all 'our majestic universities' does that represent? Edited to add: "For the most part Western culture has been shaped over several generations to accept a "scientific view" that: 1)There is no god 2)Humans are simply high-order primates " To describe the above as a scientific view is a display of profound scientific ignorance. In 1) science simply cannot address things that are supernatural. In 2) humans ARE primates. Their placement is somewhat a matter of opinion, depending on the context.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

No need to apologize JMBadger, the apology is mine. I DID have the two of you confused. (See I told you I was confused ) MY bad! To JMHawkins (now that I've gotten the two of you separated more clearly...I think...more apologies), I am referring to parents who seemed to be more like JMBadger described. These were parents who drove their sons to the scout meetings and often had to remind them of things, like their book, their backpacks, the fact that they had to practice knots. They sometimes discussed how they had to nag the boys to do chores or homework. One of them needed help with algebra. This sort of thing. The parents I know of who didn't provide this kind of prodding were mostly single moms who simply didn't have the time. I remind myself as I re-read this thread, that this dialogue started with a single anecdotal observation for which there was no further explanation other than that based on supposition. I'm just trying to take this to a slightly better observational basis.

"Packsaddle JMBadger, JMHawkins...not sure if you meant me or the one who started this thread. Maybe both." Now you're confusing me. I'm pretty sure that when I wrote "JMHawkins" I meant JMHawkins, in the original post. You guys aren't alter egos of the same person are you? I have had identical twins in my courses from time to time. It's not easy, I might add.

Granted that it wasn't a lead, but I kind of liked his role in 'Little Shop of Horrors'. Heck, I liked 'What About Bob?' and 'Groundhog Day' as well.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

New Development and a possible test of some of these ideas... I just received my new advising list and a couple of superannuated scouts from the troop I serve are on it. Their parents were similar to JMHawkins in their involvement (if his description serves well), so I'm going to see how 'needy' or 'prepared' these guys might be. I'll bookmark this thread so I can update with news.

I guess I do 'own' that 'odd' comment. My students sure believe it. My children, similar conclusion long ago. And I'm fairly certain I earned it on my own...with no help from my mommy and daddy. Also I feel the need to defend the island. Insects there aren't as bad as in the South, maybe due to help by the amazing population of house geckos. But the roaches, while different, are nowhere near as bad as in the very old building I'm in on campus here in the South. And if you smash one that's sitting on the powerstrip, the bloatware doesn't like it much.

So ronquera, in addition to what you asked for, you have learned how something that seems simple and concise tends to take on a life of its own here. I won't mention that 'other' thread that these guys intentionally beat to death for over a year. Oops, I guess I mentioned it....

Gack! After mastering the military acronyms...now this. Come to think of it, this can't be worse than the military.

Beavah, I hope you're happy.

Folks, it probably is moot anyway, at least for now. I just tried to move it and while I can probably edit or delete offending posts, the 'move' attempt failed. Oh well. Just try to keep it on topic.

NJ, I can't speak for the other churches but mine would not have allowed someone from another church to be a leader even if they were Presbyterian - forget it for other faiths. In order to be accepted you would probably have to undergo some kind of weird conversion (I really don't want to go any further with this thought). Nevertheless, Charlotte has a large and thriving Jewish presence. One of my favorite memories was when one of my friends, Jerry Lieberman, told me his definition of a Gentile was a person who goes into a retail store...and buys something. Yeah, I know now that was an old joke but I always laughed a lot when he was around. If anything, I think Jewish wit and humor are the most distinctive characteristics. When I was growing up a guy named Harry Golden was publishing a popular paper called the Carolina Israelite. He was, of course, not popular with the racists and homophobes, but he had a great sense of humor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Golden But I'm curious. What is a "somewhat Jewish-looking face"? Do these qualify? http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/photos/photos_galleries/EthiopiacomestoIsrael/ Or do all of 'you people' look like Golda Meir? If so, Mario Cuomo should probably reassess his background. Actually most of my wife's family as well (and she's even beginning to look...nope better leave that one alone). But then, all the Mediterranean types tend to look alike to me. It's almost as if...they've been mingling their populations for many thousands of years or something.

I'll just quickly note that: 1) boys already go camping with gay leaders and, 2) local option already exists - it's the ability of the CO to reject anyone they choose from leadership. The difference is that the CO can't ALLOW anyone they choose to be part of the leadership. That's the part of local option that is needed. Moreover, if the BSA allowed the full local option it would obviously continue to allow the CO to reject whoever they choose from leadership. The homophobes can remain homophobes. No problem.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

TNScoutTroop, what you write is correct with regard to the dogmas. However, I was there in my Presbyterian church during that time. Racial integration was THE concern for my church. Probably for others as well, as you mention. It ripped the congregation apart and left a lot of deep wounds in the community. Lasting wounds. It was my observation that those individuals in my church, who were the most 'fundamentalist' with regard to dogma, were also the same individuals who vowed to resist integration "no matter what". The dogma was never mentioned. Rather it was about miscegenation and all sorts of imagined racial things (which they claimed were rooted in the scripture). It is good to hear that things have turned around in your church. The elements are still around, however. Just this week a guy turned up at a protest in SC with a sign that refers to Obama as "President Negro". I remember vividly, and not long ago, signs at the edges of towns which read, "(Nfillinblank), don't let the sun set on you in (nameoftown)". I admit, I was strongly affected by all that I observed...I observed some really, really bad things. Sometimes the 'darkness' is almost overwhelming. [text deleted] But eventually, I'll be gone too. And PCA won't have me pointing at them anymore. Sherminator, I seem to have the feeling that it did start in I/P and miraculously moved here. Oh well.

Just a suspicion, but it could be that it is a sensitive issue for Charlotte because of Charlotte's role in the civil rights struggle. AND Christ Covenant is a member of the Presbyterian Church of America which separated from PCUSA in opposition to what PCA viewed as liberalization of PCUSA (read - support of civil rights). I saw all this first hand as a youth. Jet, if you go to the archives you'll see that we HAVE talked about it...a lot...in these forums: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=175663#id_175818

Nope, a real cockroach - they're our constant companions in the South. Took 20 minutes to get the Microsoft bloatware to run right again. No dorms. Off-campus house rental. Never had to lift a finger other than to extend a credit card once in a while.

What's the argument? Didn't I write that I was wrong about all that? Beavah, you wrote, "So even though as a parent yeh think yeh have "ultimate authority" for your child, good luck at tryin' to get the school to change that "C" in Chemistry to an "A" for your child." Technically, that would be a parent attempting to influence a teacher or a school. It's not the same thing (and I suspect you know that). As a parent, and in response to that 'C', I do have the authority to pull the plug on TV, video games, etc. and sit for hours each night to help my child to understand algebra or chemistry or how to do first aid or manage a spreadsheet. It works a lot better than the 'sink or swim' approach you're advocating. But I MUST have done the wrong thing: Son graduated with honors in mechanical engineering, great job, growing family. Regarding daughter, been there, done that. I won. She's about to graduate, also with honors. Another sad failure on my part. Hi Vicki! just tickling the tail of the dragon. Added note: I have just demonstrated empirically that when the baby cockroach crawls out of the woodwork, it is better to wait until AFTER it has moved past the power button before you mash it to smithereens. Saves a lot of time in the long run.

I was under the impression that parents had the ultimate authority and responsibility for their children. I must have been mistaken. All that nagging: piano practice, band practice, memorize the catechism, school homework, eat your vegetables, do your chores....but NOT keeping the records for a MB, or practicing lashings, or, or...if the troop leader says not to. I was soooo wrong.

I always thought that 'deathbeds' had to do with last rites or last heartbeats or something, followed by horrible, agonizing deaths. Hopefully, most of those Eagles 17.3 years and greater don't die momentarily after receiving the award. Let's see, if the minimum age for earning Eagle is, say, 12 and the maximum cutoff is 18, and if the mean age is 17.3...wow. An even distribution between 12 and 18 would produce a mean of 15 or so. The actual distribution must be HEAVILY skewed toward age 18 to produce that result. I would like to see the actual data to see how they calculated it. But age 17.3, if that is the mean, occurring so close to the limit at age 18, then a 'deathbed' Eagle could be anyone who earns it after that age, probably more than 50% of all Eagles. Which means.... "Eagle Mills" must be churning out 'deathbed' Eagles! AHAH!!!! or else this is all just a lot of nonsense IMHO this is actually the effect of a hard deadline confronting youthful procrastination. I guess those 'deathbed' types are the worst procrastinators of all. But there's that 'dead' thing again isn't it...'dead'line. H'mmm, we are just so fascinated with mortality.

"Eagle Scout is an individual goal. It shouldn't be used as a measure of success or failure of a troop..." And I agree with Sherminator505. I'd only add that it shouldn't be used as a measure of success or failure for the scout either. I know plenty of boys and had plenty of buddies that aged out with Life or Star or even First Class and they were outstanding young men in the outdoors or otherwise. I was the first Eagle ever for my troop a long time ago, in a galaxy far away. The next one was the same year and then it took about 5 more years for more of them. I'm thinking that we probably wouldn't have qualified as an Eagle Mill. Rather, we had a troop that sounds like a cross between something Eamonn and Kudu would have led. I earned the rank at age 15, something of a gray area from the sound of it in this thread. But I didn't do an Eagle project either. Oh well.

John, It is possible for a troop to 'mis-use' the program by having merit badge advancement as part of the troop meeting and have no boys ever achieve Eagle...because the program is so lousy they drop out. Also, if the balance you mention goes the other way with Advancement Method virtually absent, does that make it an "Eagle Dead Zone"? You also wrote, "...only direct observation of a unit over time can tell you if its goal is to produce Eagles..." I could see a definition using this approach in which the ONLY goal is to produce Eagles. I also doubt that you can find a single unit that will state the above as its only goal. Again, this is a subjective judgment on the part of the observer, still without much clarity to the process. NC, show me the program where among all the other goals, support of advancement (ultimately to Eagle) is not one of them.

Moosetracker wrote, "Packsaddle as suspected you knew perfectly well what it was, you just wanted us to list them so that you could dispute them.." I'm still trying to find where I indicated that I "knew perfectly well what it was..." In fact, in my last post I wrote, "To me it [Eagle Mills] is simply a nebulous, misused, pejorative term that I don't fully understand." I do know "perfectly well" that people throw the term around but I don't know "perfectly well" how to identify such a unit. That is the reason I asked the question. After reading all the diverse opinions (including yours) on this subject, I'm no clearer in my mind about "Eagle Mills" than I was before you listed your criteria. I don't dispute that people use the term. And I don't dispute that you think your criteria are the ones to apply. Rather I contend that there are troops that few would consider to be "Eagle Mills" but meet some of your criteria. My comments address the need to identify the 'boundary' with "Eagle Mills" on one side, and regular units on the other. To me, your follow-up using Brent's "you know it when you see it" is no more illuminating than the criteria were. The "you know it when you see it" approach leaves the judgment completely subjective (and perhaps prejudicial) by the observer whose opinion could be based on anything. If Knot Head's admission that his program is an "Eagle Mill" is correct, then based on what he described, I would have to say that it is good to be an "Eagle Mill". But the sense I get from you and some of the others is that it is NOT good to be an "Eagle Mill". So, taking Knot Head's example of an admitted "Eagle Mill", please show me where the problem is. Or is Knot Head wrong? Please explain.

'Wearing clothes to work' Man! I KNEW I was getting something wrong. No wonder all the stares and pointing...some snickering...