packsaddle

78. Not sure yet, maybe the 28th at about 2pm.

The solstice happened just a couple of hours before I breezed past OGE on my way to upstate NY. And it's cold and windy and frozen here, almost like being a Presbyterian again. So I also look forward to the return of longer, warmer days...and of the fertility of the earth in spring, and I celebrate for all of those pagan rites that have come to be known as Christmas. Weight loss can come later.

...Not to mention wear-and-tear on the uniforms. As for the concept of 'council knowledge', if there was ever a list of places where I would NOT look for important knowledge, the council would be near the top of the list. Or perhaps I misunderstood something...

Stosh, I would like to reiterate a response by ScoutNut to your statement, in part, that we are "...producing Eagle Scouts, who should be an example of religious, moral character that don't actively participate in any religion, have stated it as such, and basically defy the Eagle Boards to challenge them." I would also like to know where it is stated that a boy is required to participate in a religion to qualify for the rank of Eagle? I would also like to know why an Eagle BOR should "challenge" them on this basis? Where do leaders get the responsiblity to usurp the role of the parents and families in these matters? Where do I find these guidelines and policies? It is sure nice to know that with all the uncertainties we encounter in this world, we all can count on religion to divide us.

You can merely write to Bob White that, "...yes, I have read and understand the requirements." And it's possible that you won't hear another peep. If you signed the form then there is no further need for you to answer questions from Bob or anyone else on these forums who, for any reason, question your beliefs. Case closed. As for the boys, another potential resource is a local Unitarian Universalist Church or Fellowship. They have a program for their youth called "Church Across the Street" or something along those lines. The program investigates a diverse range of religions and focuses on the actual practice of those religions in the community. I'm not suggesting that you join their church but I think they'd welcome a request for help along these lines.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Kudu, back when I was a scout my troop had about 25 boys and there was a fist fight about every third week. Never involved an adult but it came close on one occasion (involved a leader from another troop). Only a few involved me (I had most of my fights on the school bus). But fighting was wrong back then as it is now. The difference to me today is that back then, almost none of us had access to a pistol. And a knife was just too up close and personal, and risky. Today guns are just incredibly available. Besides, if a person's intent is to hurt another, words can go far deeper and be far longer lasting. It just takes a little skill...as well as the intent.

Liz, so do I.

I'm with Bob on this. She has nothing to explain if she doesn't want to. The problem is really in your own mind. Welcome her back.

Have you seen the 1971 movie starring Donald Sutherland, "Johnny Got His Gun"? Based on the 1938 novel by same name? Edited for clarity and spelling.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Or...you can make friends, invite him for spaghetti some evening (or in your case peirogies or something). Then sprinkle Ascaris eggs on his dish before he's served, or mix in some Cortinarius orellanus. And then wait a week or two to watch him writhing in untreatable and inevitable agonizing death. Muhahahahahahaha!

Oooooo, naughty Beavah! Trying to hijack the thread. Remember, we were all being lied to at the time. We were told the threat was immediate. Back to topic I hope.

OGE, I understood your original post correctly. The SPL was wrong to hit the guy. And your mom was right. Words are insufficient reason to resort to violence. As I know from personal experience, those who DO respond that way to words are often just using them as a rationalization for violence to which they are already predisposed.

Unless in response to a physical assault that has not ended, 'Never' is my answer. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." OGE, I think you were the only one to get the source of that last time I wrote it. I confess that I have broken this rule countless times back when I was young and stupid. (Vicki, are you out there somewhere?) The 'martial arts' instructor, if they're any good, will instruct their students that responses always are meant to defend or deflect, not to be the aggressor. A physical response to words is an escalation of the interaction. Back when I was young and stupid, the response could have involved a knife. In today's society the next response may well involve a gunshot. Here the words of the 'Car Talk' guys come to my mind, "Unencumbered by the thought process." Heh, heh, my wife shrugs and applies that to males in general. Way back when I did martial arts I really enjoyed the sparring. It was full-contact but not full force. Black eyes and bloody noses but not dislocations or broken bones (OK maybe some bruised ribs). To me it was a really fun game of tag. But even with the instructor's careful intervention there were hotheads who would lose it from time to time. It was a very risky source of 'fun'. None of that has a place in scouting, IMHO.

I have avoided comment so far although I am from the South although not quite as deep as the Gulf Coast. This unit has come close to something like this only a couple of times. I agree with Beavah's measured-yet-firm approach. Our response was immediate and decisive. It worked. The situation in this case is a bit different but I was struck initially by the observation that "...many of the boys were teasing him and making racial slurs." I think you cannot allow a practical problem hold your proper response hostage. I would ask the leadership to cancel the next outing rather than to allow these boys on it. Beavah is right. This has a root in the family and you are probably not going to correct it. By the time they have attained this age, the poison of prejudice has had most of the formative years to settle in their personalities. The best you can do is to cut it out before it poisons the rest of the troop. This means you must at least silence the words. Failing that, you may have to remove boys from the unit. Believe it or not, this is not a tough decision. The hard part comes after you take the decisive action...and then have to decide where to draw the line. The decision in this case is clear. It won't be so clear if the slur is with regard to, say, someone with a disability or against someone who isn't in the troop, perhaps against gays or people with bald heads. That line will be the tough decision.

Am I going crazy? OK, I know the generic answer to that - but specifically, are there some missing posts from this thread? I could have sworn that there were some additional posts here earlier and now they're missing and I'm afraid I'm hallucinating without the benefit of banned substances. As the little white-headed fly said in the movie, Helllllllpppp Meeeeee!

Not a Dawg but close enough for me to interact with quite a few colleagues there. Odum died some time ago. He and his brother Howard (U of Florida and also deceased) were both famous and both had the same accents and used the phrase, "Don'cha know?", to end all sorts of statements, even at professional meetings. One of the highlights of my professional career was in Augusta, Ga for a symposium in 1979 or so when Howard playfully argued with Gene about some fine point and finally offerred to stuff him into a bomb calorimeter to see what he was worth. Sorry, you have to be an ecologist to appreciate the humor. But Eugene Odum was author of a book, "Fundamentals of Ecology", which was influential in popularizing the ecosytem concept. For better or worse, much of the public is now familiar (correctly or incorrectly) with the term largely to his efforts. He was the creator of the Institute of Ecology at UGa and spent most of his time there in later years. Earlier he had done a great deal of research at the Savannah River Ecology Lab, also largely his creation. He was a good guy.

The thread continues to evolve into an interesting and benign form..... Well, I often used to hear Eugene Odum (a famous ecologist at UGa) say, "Don'cha know?". And he had a thick Southern accent. I think that one may be in use all over. But I have always wondered about that 'uff-da' usage. What does it mean and in what context is it used? One thing I'd like to learn to do before I die is that most civilized sport of curling. But I need to understand the language first.

I sort of agree with Narraticong. At first I saw the writing style as an affectation but then it became clear that he wants what is best for the boys just like most of the rest of us and then I finally became amused by it. Nevertheless, projecting my own persona on that type of communication, I think it would take a lot of extra time for me to write like that...unless I also spoke like that. Now THAT thought is scary. Anyway, I also had him placed in the upper midwest or somewhere like that, maybe on the Dorr Peninsula or around MSP or Eau Claire or maybe Eau Galle. OK, someplace where there's a lot of cheese. I can't explain why but it would also be just wonderful to learn that he's in Walker, MN on the shore of Leech Lake or maybe Bemidji. On the other hand, it would be just awful to find out he's someplace like Branson, MO or Arkadelphia, AR. Again, I have no idea why I feel that way...it just doesn't seem to fit. But Mrs. Beavah, I'm told, makes a really good batch of cookies once in a while. Yep, you can forget all the other stuff, it's really all about food.

There's not much more to offer in the way of advice. Beavah, I think, has given you the best package to think about so far. I just add a personal note from your last message. If I had done what I did as a youth, in today's society, I'd probably be a long way from where I am now and possibly not alive. I strongly sympathize with your son. I was lucky on so many levels. The thing that really caught my eye was his wish to become a backcountry ranger. That was exactly what I had wanted to be back at that age. Circumstances took me in a different path but I still sometimes wish that could have happened. I wish him luck in his ambition and if he attains his goal, I'll be sooooo envious. As a matter of fact, it's time to strap on the backpack and head out for a few days.....

Dan, I would like to offer some evidence for encouragement. When I ask young people about these issues, most are unconcerned about whether someone is gay or not. They seem to be more accepting and more concerned about 'real' issues such as starting a career. Some even respond with frustration or impatience at the way things were in the 'old days'. So while we feel like we're beating our heads against a wall, young people seem to be sliding quietly past the barrier, freer to think about these things and form their own views. I find this to be reason for optimism. All that is needed is for older people like me to die off and take the fears and prejudices with us. Have a nice day.

Hal, because you've not been involved with the many threads that have replowed this ground I'll repeat something I've written before. BSA policy has a fatal flaw - in that it only prohibits 'avowed' gays. It can never do anything else. That addresses Beavah's interest in regulating behavior, not that heterosexual behavior IS promoted as part of the program. It is my understanding that adult sexual behavior of any kind is off-limits within the scouting program. I consider BSA's approach to be disingenuous because they KNOW the policy cannot keep gays out. It is a 100% certainty that gays are already 'in' and probably always have been. They probably always will be. Moreover the policy is deceptive because it provides a 'smokescreen' for people who are very concerned about 'behavior' and keeping gays out. It allows them to believe gays ARE out. Until there is a mechanism to detect gays who are not 'avowed', this is probably the way it is going to remain for the near future at least. It isn't perfect but it seems to satisfy the members who are most concerned about this kind of membership exclusion.

NJ, because I'm probably one of those people you mentioned in the last part of your message, I'll respond for myself as I can't for the others. For me, it is the end of the semester and I've been just too busy to take the time to try to respond to views I consider to be based on prejudice. As you detected, part of the reason is also because from past experience I understand my efforts to have been ineffective. I also note that there are also some from the OTHER side of our views on this topic who have also remained strangely silent. Call it tit-for-tat if you want but I see this issue as continuing in stalemate. BSA is what it is and they will do what they want, regardless of what I (we) think is fair or right. I submit that there is probably nothing you could bring to the forum that would cause Beavah or vol_scouter to change their views as well as the other way around. On this topic I merely content myself with the knowledge that gay scouters exist, always have, always will, and they pose no greater threat to the boys or the organization than heterosexuals do. The policy of BSA toward gays is sad but it isn't effective at much more than allowing those who disagree with you and me....to feel good about their views and deceived about gays in the organization. Make that doubly sad. But you can at least understand that you are not alone in your view.

"As to scouting, few would say that it is unwise to allow 2 heterosexual adult males to take post-pubertal girl scouts on a camping trip." I can't speak for other parts of the country but around here such an idea would get VERY close scrutiny and probably would be discouraged unless adult women were also in leadership positions and present on the camping trip.

Beavah, I am left in confusion by what you just wrote. It seems to be a common thing for me these days. But please explain what you meant when you wrote, "Fairly easy for hetero friends to "marry" with a "pre-nup" just so that an uninsured friend can get covered on the employed friend's insurance." and then, "If you were a single person and your uninsured best friend got cancer, wouldn't you do that for 'em?" In the first situation, using myself as one of the people, are both of us 'hetero' or only one of us - or could we both be gay but male and female? Huh? And when you put 'marry' in quotes are you saying that there is no actual legal marriage license? Or are you indicating that it is intended to defraud an insurance provider? I am supposing the 'pre-nup' is in order to protect assets or something along those lines but it isn't clear to me how the scam works. Regarding the friend with cancer, ...ok, is the friend a male or a female? If I was unmarried, it seems such an action would be detrimental to me because once the legal action is taken, regardless of motive, I am not free to marry a person with whom I am actually in love. Does this kind of thing happen all the time? Maybe I don't watch enough soaps. I guess this is why I would never have been a successful attorney.

Keoki12, when I write, 'Welcome to the forums' to you I note that I am saddened by the circumstances that bring you here. I recognize that even a very long message to the forums cannot fully, and possibly adequately, express all that has happened in your son's and your lives. What I can say is that I have had similar experiences personally and that I have watched other families associated with this unit struggle with similar experiences. None of us have experienced, however, the interactions you have had with your BSA council. I will try to answer your questions directly, "So tell me. What kind of a troop do you run? Are you truly mentors?" and later, "So what is Boy Scouts all about? Mentoring or Destroying?" This unit, whenever a boy has a serious problem (and we've had some doozies), has been supportive of the boy and their family. We've never had any of those things happen during a scouting event, though, and that might be a big difference. I can tell you that some of the things have been far more serious than smoking pot. We have managed, in every case, to nurture rather than destroy, and to support growth rather than to simply judge and condemn. To this extent, and to the human limits that each of us have, we try to be mentors and good role models. The boys know they can trust us and we provide a safe, supportive place for them to grow. That said, this unit has NEVER relied on the council or BSA as a source of virtue. We derive whatever good we have from the goodness of individuals rather than from a corporation (in this case, BSA). I think this is almost always true. We consider BSA to be part of the 'means' but WE actually do the work and WE ultimately define the 'end'. In the cases of troubled youth that we've had, most of them have turned around and gone on to happy, productive lives. I sincerely hope your son will discover a similar path for his life. It IS out there, just keep trying.