packsaddle

Hey OneHour, some may see the glass half empty, others half full. Engineers see the glass as twice as big as it needs to be. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I concur with Beavah's cautionary advice. I do know the programs and people in our area so I may fairly be more enthusiastic than I would be in another area. And I admit that I do wrestle in my mind for a good answer to Beavah's last question. I guess, to sort of follow Beavah's lead on this, my answer is that it really is a judgement call that is greatly helped by knowing boys, their families, and their background.

Welcome to the forums! And thanks for sharing your personal feelings on this topic. In response to SSScout, one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons depicts several businessmen sitting around a table in some social setting. One of them explains, "I'll tell you why we were put here - we were put here to outperform the market!" To each, their own...god, that is.

Fred, I've read it and I agree it's a good book. One silver lining I see in the increased cost of energy is the incentive to rebuild a sense of community. The increased costs will provide incentives to produce locally, to trade locally, and to communicate and travel locally. It might be good to reintroduce ourselves to each other. We might even like it. I recently read "Justinian's Flea" and for me it was a long-overdue reintroduction to classical history. Good story too.

I guess in my case it would be a 'rule bender' being a 'rule stickler', heh, heh. But I see the system as the best way to address the problem in the case of this class of 'poor decisions'. Aside from violating the spirit of scouting, it is a serious crime that MUST be reported to the authorities (and here I mean the actual authorities, not just the council or CO). My reasoning is that such a 'poor decision' by a boy indicates that most of the lessons he could have learned from the program may not have been effective and time is terribly short to turn him around. I side with the 'tough love' approach which includes handcuffs, fingerprints (not the MB), and perhaps a view of the inside of a jail cell. If his history, as reviewed by the court during PTI, indicates a first time offence, and if there is support for him by family, friends (CO and troop), and community, then this boy has a chance to turn things around. I have seen this happen and participated on a couple of occasions. The process allows the boy to 'grow up' very quickly over the course of hours, days, weeks, and months. Whether he remains part of scouting or not, turning him around is the important thing and I see the system working well, if a boy is capable of being turned around. So far, thankfully, I haven't personally seen a failure.

Beavah, where have YOU been? Rooster's been back with us for a while now...I thought you would have noticed. Good to have him back to argue with too. Ahem, I have not forgotten your comment that I made you look like a liberal. Heh, heh, heh.....

Yeah, after 23 years things might change some but that's almost precisely the way we promise the scout parents that we'll handle a situation if such arises on a long trip. Thankfully, we've never had to follow through on the policy. Our trips have been exciting for all the right reasons. But I thank my BSA training for help in travel with students as well. When I take them overseas or on similar long trips, I make them sign an agreement (they're legal adults) to (and on) a copy of the conduct policy in advance, or else they don't go. If they leave the group without permission, I promise to phone them with info on how to find an airport or perhaps a consulate so they can get themselves back on their own. If they get arrested for a crime like drugs or alcohol, I promise to notify their parents who can make arrangements with local attorneys, etc. If they sneak away AND get in trouble, I promise that I will make sure their parents know approximately where they are (if I don't know exactly) and that they are missing. Then I will 'leave them on the beach' so-to-speak. So far, we've had rather close-knit groups, heh, heh. And we've had really great times as a result.

Beavah, man I truly do share your feelings on zero tolerance. I remember very well the way my youthful transgressions were handled (with all the consideration that you advocate) and I agree up to a point. However, in many ways the PTI process does accomplish the end that you would desire - at least around these parts. I've been involved with boys who have stumped their toes on some really, really serious mistakes (far worse than a little pot smoking) and I have been very impressed with the measured advocacy approach that was applied in each individual case. I concede that PTI may not work as well other places but I am a strong advocate for it here - precisely for the reasons you mention. Once the boy has his 18th birthday, little if any of that measured response is available. Therefore I would rather wake him up with a non-fatal '2x4-to-the-face' prior to age 18 than risk a truly life-changing situation after.

You know Ed, (sit down for this) I tend to agree. The lives being lost in Iraq are tragic but they knew the score when they volunteered (and here I don't want to give the impression that I minimize the loss of innocent lives in Iraq). It will have a long-term effect on our national defence as well. But what this guy has done to the national debt and the domestic programs - we poured our treasure as well as blood out on the sand... not to mention the international diplomatic capital that we also poured out on the sand...we will live with the consequences of his self-deceptions and folly for a very long time. I too have never seen the like of it in my lifetime. Bin Laden is still thumbing his nose....and possibly getting the last laugh on this president - at our nation's expense.

If that was the least of it, what was the most?

He has a son named Johnny?

Read my response to the spun thread. I note the access to PTI that will be unavailable once he turns 18.

Gold Winger, you're not convinced? Hey, no less than Dubya himself eventually admitted there are (and were) no WMD. Are you calling him...you know...a liar? Edited part: Pales in comparison? So Willie got himself a little strange and how many people are dead as a result?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Thanks Gern, for that sickeningly complete link.

Gold Winger, have you heard of Scott McClellan? OK, specifically, Dubya lied to the entire country regarding the existence of WMD. In fact, nearly everyone in the administration lied about it at one time or another. That tops the list. And now they spin (in other words, lie) about that lie, claiming they had faulty intelligence. It was faulty all right. And they knew it when they made the decision. Lies. Big ones. Costly ones. I would add that I think Ike was as straight with us as was Truman. Carter too, and Ford. Edited part: I wonder if anyone considered the possibility that so-called 'liberals' might be more willing to admit their lies, thus merely making so-called 'conservatives' better at it? Oops, I see that my fellow 'Hill-William' has already noted that. Sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Wow, this is like, "Forest Gump chooses a church". It's like a box of chocolates...wait, I like the ice cream metaphor. You open the big freezer in the grocery and choose a pint of Pentecostal...no had that last month...the Assoc. Ref. Presbyterians....but wait, there's a box of wonderful Kosher pistachio...yep, that's the one...now where's that Mohel? C'mon, everyone knows he's secretly Islamic, right? I mean, I get so many emails that reveal this and many other sinister facts. Must be something to it.

I agree with Gregory House. Everyone lies. But as far as lying politicians go, Dubya has to take the cake. I'd even give Nixon a big sloppy smooch if we could just have him back instead. At least he was good at doing something even if it was evil.

The boy is under 18 and this is what pre-trial intervention is for. He is not merely doing mischief. He is breaking a serious law and if he gets a wrist slap at age 17, the penalty for the same thing at 18 will be devastating. We take the approach that he should get the handcuffs and fingerprinting treatment all the way to the judge who can review his history, address his parents in court, and make a decision as to whether he qualifies for PTI. End of story. If he does it on his own time, outside of the troop environment, and gets caught...he has our support at the PTI hearing.

I can't answer what you 'should do' or 'should have done'. I can answer what WILL happen in this unit if something similar occurs. The shot to the head would have gone straight up the line as Bob White noted in the beginning. The CO would have made a hard decision, probably allowing a second chance under the circumstances you mentioned. Smoking pot (or other drug abuse) on an troop outing will be turned over to the local police and the parents invited to bail him out. CO and council will be called after the police have been notified. End of story. This is CO policy, not mine. Smoking pot NOT on a troop outing gets a review by the committee but hasn't (at least not so far) resulted in ejection from the troop. So far, in those cases (only a couple), the program tries to engage the boys in manner that encourages a change in their decision-making skills.

ScoutNut, I was responding to your statement, "Just as I am not forced to join their religion, or follow their teachings, it is their right not to be forced to follow mine." That part about them being forced to follow yours was the part I was having trouble connecting to immunizations. But never mind that. I do recognize the reality of our society. What is happening is that because of some cockamamy religious doctrine, the health of my family (and Fscouter's and everyone else's) incurs some amount of increased risk. In a sense THEY are shoving their doctrine (or at least the risks associated with it) down society's throat, not the other way around. But my question was really where do you (we) draw the line? How idiotic does the religious doctrine have to be before we stop this PC nonsense? Snake handling is fine because they don't bring that into my home. Making noise is fine. But in this case religion is a threat to public health. So how much risk are we willing to accept for the sake of magic and superstition? Where is the line?

ScoutNut, your assertion that in some way immunization against disease might force someone to follow your religion is interesting. So what part of immunization against disease constitutes some aspect (doctrine, belief, faith, etc.) of your particular religion (or anyone else's)? Just curious. As a matter of public health, from an epidemiological viewpoint, a sufficient portion of the population that remained unimmunized, say, against polio, could in fact constitute a reservoir for that disease and thus a public health threat. This threat already exists due to economic and other factors but why increase the problem explicitly through official policy? How far do we carry this idiotic, politically correct approach?

If nothing else, the fact that BSA waives this important medical 'requirement' for non-medical reasons is evidence of the lack of importance that BSA attaches to the 'requirement'. If the importance of immunizations to personal and public health is trumped by some cockamamy religious whim, then it's a requirement of not much importance. I would argue that using this logic, a parent can use almost any reason to reject immunizations, as long as they attached 'religious' significance to it, and BSA would cave.

Translation: BSA tends to think immunizations are beneficial BUT they're not necessary. Reasoning: Religious beliefs don't change basic biological facts. This is why snake handlers tend to react to snakebites the same way as atheists. If these nutcases (sorry, technical term ) who don't immunize their children will similarly reject all other major medical advances, in time selective pressures may do the population a great favor. By having immunization information in their records, BSA will be able to know, in case of medical need, the degree to which these selective pressures will apply. Therefore, absence, say, of Tetanus immunization for a boy will let BSA know that if there is a subsequent puncture by a dirty nail, or a nasty wound at summer camp with accompanying sepsis, BSA attorneys can get their defence ready for death by tetanus that may occur. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a genetic link to stupidity so the selection process is likely to be wasted.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Duplicate post and I don't know how it happened. Sure hope I haven't evolved into epalmer. In defence of this thread, I think that Avery displayed ample ability to understand this discussion. To suggest that scout-age boys should not be confronted with such depth might help explain why women are now coming into dominance in many intellectual pursuits. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

From the mouth of the guy who coined the term: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html and also, http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm