packsaddle

Ed, considering the effective policy applied by BSA, what BSA really wants is not to have to confront the issue...and if that means accepting a so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy, then so be it. BSA seems happy to quietly accept the status-quo reality of the situation, the key being that 'quiet' aspect. Your judgmental sword cuts both ways: if you try to cut TJ down with it, you must also apply it to BSA for the way they apply their policy in practice. They don't exclude all gays, they only exclude 'avowed' gays - and really, not even all of avowed gays. That fraction of BSA members who DO want to exclude people for a variety of reasons, including you, just don't seem to grasp the fact that others can have a different moral code, and that theirs is just as correct to them as yours is to you. I've said this before regarding moral absolutes, the moral relativist train left the station a long time ago. If you run hard you might catch up.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Brent, perhaps I should have included the words, 'consenting adults'. I hope you knew that's what I meant. But in case you offered your absurd hypothetical for serious consideration I respond that if the other person (of either sex) is an adult, a physical relationship with a 10-year-old (of either sex) is a crime in most localities. Isn't this true for yours? If both persons are adults, then my answer to your first question obviously is, 'yes'. To the second one, 'no'.

Gern, I understand what you say but I caution you regarding any linkage between biological basis and any judgement about morality. Personally, I don't care if there is or isn't a biological basis (evidence suggests there is, though). The fact that two persons engage in an expression of love, to me, is never immoral. Biology, to me, is not relevant. (Note: this is NOT an invitation to push the thread over the precipice of an apocalyptically shallow discussion of genetics or development. Thanks.) Regarding discussions of sexuality. If a boy asks a question about sexuality then it is fair either to refer the boy to his parents or, if it is possible, to answer using objective and factual clinically-accurate terms. For example, if a boy comes to me and asks if raccoons breed through the nose and he reveals that his parents have told him so, I respond with the news flash that they don't. This has actually happened. The boy probably won't pursue it further, not with me at least. He didn't in real life. Another real possiblity: on a hike, we stumble across a couple of used condoms littering the side of the trail near a parking lot. The boys snicker among themselves. While I'm curious as to how the rest of you respond to this, I'll tell you now that in this situation a boy has never come to any of our leaders to ask about it. 'Street knowledge' seems to suffice. However, if a parent lodges a concern it is a good time to ask them directly, "Do you approve of your son discussing these matters with his scout leader?" In my experience, parents mostly don't. I have no idea if they take the initiative, although I suspect some do at least.

Ooooooohhhhh Gonzo1, do I detect an element of subversion there, fella? Wink, wink. September, huh? Dates? Route?

Fscouter, since I began this thread the problem has evolved, actually in the last day or so. I have been going at it hammer and tong with the SM, the latest interaction was about scout spirit. I quoted the Q&A that John-in-KC repeated from scouting.org and the SM replied, "No, I think spirit goes WAY beyond that..." When I suggested that it would be a fair request for him to clarify his thoughts in detail on what that meant - well, he got upset with me. He dismissed my arguments without considering the merits ("I just don't agree.") and suggested that by following BSA rules to the letter, a scout wouldn't have to attend a single activity or meeting and suggested that I begin a 'lone scout' program. Rriiiiiigghhht! He then began describing activities, participation, and leadership aspects that he interprets as 'spirit'. So much for BSA's definition, I guess. But so far I'm not fired and he's still talking to me. I'm working on it.'

Welcome to the forums, Skeptic. Nice nickname BTW. Your opinions may hold true some places but not my neck of the woods. There ARE gays in BSA, and if I know it that probably meets the 'avowed' part. They pose no threat whatsoever to the boys. I know this with complete confidence. On the contrary, they bring a welcome diversity of views and talents to the units, same as anyone else. Regarding lifestyle exposure, regardless of what a parent might want these days, unless we keep them in a bubble (Gonzo1 you hear this?), they're going to get that exposure either from neighbors, friends, friends' families, television, or someplace on the 'street'. This parent certainly did NOT try to shelter our children in these matters, rather we taught them to judge people as individuals without prejudice. While I know there are forum members who agree with you, I suspect there are quite a few others on this forum who feel the same as I do. So I present myself as one exception to your sweeping statement of opinion and there are probably others. I know plenty around this area. If you search the threads fairly diligently, there have been long discussions in the past regarding terms such as 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. I'm not sure how many of us want to rehash all that now. I'll just see what pops up from your post. Again, welcome to the forums.

Beavah, I think you're basically correct. However, it really is very difficult to measure, much less predict, the overall balance of energy for the planet, for that matter even for a smaller object like, say, a lake. The energy in question isn't simply backradiation, it is also reflection, both off the atmosphere itself as well as off suspended dust, clouds, and landcover that changes rapidly (think grass and snow). These are not measured the same way or by the same instruments. Many times they are not measured at all for model purposes...they are calculated from estimates of cloud and snow cover, etc. You get the idea. Given the uneven supply of that energy from the sun to the planet in the first place (think latitude, seasons, etc.) coupled with the extremely variable (in both space and time) loss of the energy from the planet...then the task of modeling the vast number of energy exchanges within the planet itself (in a vast number of fluids, solids, and places throughout the planet, in at least 4 dimensions) is daunting, to say the least. That we've even been able to make a model that produces anything like a reasonable output at all - is amazing. I salute the scientists who have been able to produce these things. While I am wary of persons with political agendas, I nevertheless have to agree that predictions of models of such complexity are usually very tentative and this is currently being reflected (no pun intended) in the revisions of model predictions reported by scientists. Unfortunately, agenda-driven opinions tend to react quickly or overreact to every new result. Such opinions are not being driven by a desire for the truth. As Rush Limbaugh (the 'bald ego') says, "It's all about money." And it really is. Personally, I deal with similar models on a much smaller scale, say river basins and watersheds. When I review submitted articles I look for the estimates of confidence associated with such model predictions. Often these are quite small (the levels of statistical confidence, that is). It doesn't make the model bad, it just makes the prediction less confident. If these predictions are used to form working hypotheses I am fine with them. If they are promoted for use in making public policy, then it is fair to subject them to public debate for better or worse. I don't know what Brent's true motives are, but to me they are unimportant. People who play the role of skeptic are necessary and when I do it, at least, I take great pleasure in it. And for this, global climate change is fertile ground.

Heh, heh, this kid has some rude awakenings ahead. I'd love to be there to watch. One of my personal favorites was when I was washing dishes one evening. My son had just entered middle school and evidently had picked up some 'street sense'. He chastised me for doing the dishes because it was 'woman work'. My wife heard him. I just smiled quietly and allowed it all to happen. Exquisite!, Way better than flying monkeys!

Did anyone mention that with the new LED lights, changing a bulb may never happen again? Anyway, who said OGE doesn't have a sense of humor? Fie upon thee!

Gonzo1 I have to admit that is pretty far over the edge. My wife's motherly instincts went into high gear for our kids too. We stopped short of the GPS implants though. I'm afraid I didn't go along with much of the nonsense. Life with me must have been a living hell for her during those years. Hey, what am I saying? It's probably still a living hell for her. Muh-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! But fortunately, even perhaps for the one you describe, the kids often (during those rebellion times) pick up on all this and they pretty much take care of things themselves. He may be out of the troop but perhaps the bubble will not be a permanent fixture.

Let's see....over 40 years later, and I still have most of my original blue cards, etc. H'mmm, talk about a packrat! I probably need to recycle the leisure suits too. Now when was the last time I had a 28 inch waiste?

Wow, I had something like that thrown at me a couple of times as well. If this is true I'd be pleased to have Mr. Eckhart rehearse his 'fries' question at the drive thu. That said, this is all much ado about very little. This kind of thing goes on all the time and it is mostly meaningless...unless, of course, it makes a headline. Then people 'think' it means something. It does in a way because it gives people who assume political postures the ammunition they need to adjust those postures. His threats were just bluster, probably with little or no intimidation value. Whenever I get a threat like this I can be sure that there is almost nothing backing it up, so I just shrug, maybe give them a wink to see if there's really something to their inclination. Same for this article, a snoozer. Nothing new for science, I'm afraid.

Beavah, yeah I agree. I can deal with the physical stuff and the clearly defined stuff but when it comes to the gooey things like spirit there are as many views as there are people to view them. I already told the SM that the spirit question is his alone. I guess that's why he's paid the big bucks.

Update, the SM is now OK with the project. Yeah, I know, things change. But this is a sign of improvement or progress or something...isn't it? It seems the real problem has to do with scout spirit. I....seeee...dead people. Keep in mind that the SM admits the boy has been active in outings and leadership, he still questions the scout spirit part. I can't articulate this fully because I don't fully comprehend it, but it has to do with the boy's failure to 'advertise' the project in the manner the SM thinks it should have been advertised. I'm still trying to comprehend this.

In my best Sgt. Schultz voice, "Colonel Klink, I see NOTHINK! I know NOTHINK!"

Lisabob, when I am the main guy for summer camp (where partials are prolific), I take the MB sheets that substitute for blue cards home with me. I make two complete sets of photocopies. The originals I give to the boys with the admonition that if they lose them, don't rely on anyone else to provide the information. Then I give another complete set to the advancement chair and keep a set myself. I keep these until the boys turn 18 and that is when I relieve my file cabinet. So far only one or two boys have needed my backup but the vast majority have needed the troop copy. Usually they learn from that first time. You'd be surprised at how many of those MBs never ever get completed. My son was as bad as any of them, he could have had two more palms but, Naaaaahhhhh. Oh well. His choice.

Welcome to the forums! This may not be true for all councils, but ours is notorious for losing records and they are aware of this problem. Over the years I have gained the confidence of the council records people so they are willing to use pretty much any record we can produce in order to correct missing or erroneous records. Our troop has multiply redundant records. The advancement person keeps an independent computer file on all advancement. There are many programs that can do this, not to mention it being a simple manipulation in Excel. The troop also keeps copies of all of the advancement forms that go to the council. These forms are the best sources of official information because they are where the council is supposed to get the data in the first place. Finally, the blue cards or any substitute work fine if there is no other source of information. If the MBs are earned at an outside council then that camp or council may still have copies of those records. If in another troop, they may have theirs as well. As a last resort, the counselor may remember the boy and feel confident enough to redo a blue card for him. Failing all of the above, it may require a retake of the MB. Hope this helps.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Thanks Beavah, In my best 'Mr. Burns' accent, "EX..cellenntt!" That is just what I needed to see.

OK, that was really weird. I just saw a message from OGE and then I refreshed the screen and OGE is now gone. OGE, are you OK? Are you still on earth? I mean, WOW, am I in the twilight zone...no, don't answer that. Edited part: OGE, before you went away I downloaded your document. Thanks, BTW. But that web site attempted to infect me with a trojan horse. Cleaned and deleted, the host site might have dumped you. Hope you're feeling better.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

John-in-KC, it is impossible to fault your logic. I agree. The DAC in this case is not necessarily a monument to BSA policy, however, I'd rather solve this without resorting to that level if I can. OGE, now THAT is really interesting. I'd like to hear (read) more. Edited part: John-in-KC, one more thought. I would not hand in my papers for something like this. Instead I would (and have) stayed around to try to nurture better programs and policy implementation. I must be feeling in a 'glass-half-full' mood right now. LongHaul, I think I follow what you mean. The approvals were in place. I'm going to have to work on just what it was the SM has in mind, I'm not sure right now. I'll get back to you. The weird thing is, neither of us, me or the SM, have any reservations about the excellence of this scout or his leadership. There's something else going on here that still mystifies me.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Thanks folks, This is one I get as a legacy issue. I was only recently made the Eagle coordinator (whatever) for the troop and this project was started a long time ago. I'm just trying to keep the train on the tracks after it left the station. I just went through the timeline and workbook for the scout. Not including family involvement, there were a total of over 235 hours of time by a total (not including the scout) of 19 persons, about half of whom were other scouts. I just mentioned the "web site" as an example of a project that could be completed by one person. This project, it turns out, was far more extensive in both time and effort. It involved landscape planning, grant writing and submission, webcam siting and installation design, fairly basic construction, as well as web development to get everything running. I'm seeing this thing as a tempest in a tea pot. However, in anticipation of a problem that hasn't yet happened: If the SM is obstinate and refuses to sign off, what recourse does the scout have? Do another project? What kind of approval power does an ASM have in this case? Can an ASM approve anything involved in the Eagle rank? Thanks again.

John-in-KC, Your closing question is a really good question. Unfortunately, according to what I've read (this is not the problem I'm dealing with, though) the BOR does not have to conclude that the project was sufficient, merely because it did everything that was originally approved. By inference, the SM doesn't have to sign off on the SM conference merely because he approved the project, although in my mind it seems a contradiction. In this case the SM conference is the potential problem that I am trying to fix before the problem emerges. I intend to do this by knowing the details of the project and meeting with the SM to lay some groundwork. I have done this before for another scout and the SM, bullheaded as he is, nevertheless is susceptible to reason if I can present a sufficiently good case. That's the essence. I'm trying to run interference in a mix of bad communications and personality conflicts. This scout is not a slacker. In fact, he is one scout with whom I'd be glad to share a long trail. He is very accomplished in scouting and highly motivated, very smart, and almost totally in conflict with the SM. There is no resolution likely, I hope for truce. The scout did an outstanding project. It required clearance all the way up to the top of the school board. He successfully competed for a grant from a government agency to fund it. And it was his own very original idea. Then he did the project, even the SM admits the project is amazing, but he did it almost solo with only a little help outside the troop. The problem is a perception that the troop MUST be involved in every Eagle project and that the troop wasn't involved this case. My personal view is that (along the lines of what Lisabob said) there is sufficient evidence of leadership. I am trying to find a way that this situation doesn't blow up and a good scout can have a great Eagle experience rather than a tragic and needless conflict. Thanks for the comments, they help. I will meet with him today and then with the SM probably a few days later. I'll give this a little time to cool and maybe get some more pointers from the forum. See...this is the real reason I like this forum. Thanks again.

OK folks, another curve ball and I need some suggestions. Help me out if you can. What do you consider the absolute minimum that an Eagle project can entail? What guideline does a SM follow during the SM conference so that he can fairly judge whether this project met the requirements? For example, if a boy has a project approved at all levels and he proceeds to complete the project (say, a web site for a school) on his own, with no outside assistance...can that qualify? If not, why not? Is there an official guideline for such judgement? What is the minimum involvement that will qualify as a leadership component? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Edited part: followup question - if the web site didn't meet the requirement and there is still time, what measures should be taken to fix this situation. Remember, the project as approved for the workbook is done. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Heh, heh, Gonzo1, you just reminded me of something. Shortly after our wedding my wife began regularly calling me a 'bastard'...even in front of my mother, no less, heh, heh. She had to choke back some of her better stuff after we had kids, heh, heh. We're now edging up on our anniversary for 30 years of bliss, heh, heh, unless I catch an ice pick in my ear in my sleep some night soon. But it's been an experience. Have a great day!

Interesting, the online article makes it a little clearer. I don't understand why people seem to think they are entitled to services and resources at no cost to themselves. I see two ironies in the article. One is that a church complaint is behind the revision of the way fees are assessed. (maybe it's really an ACLU conspiracy ) The other is that so many people who claim to be so-called 'conservatives' seem to want something for nothing, and a government handout to boot. One more for the collection....