packsaddle

Perhaps we're missing an opportunity. Let the audits roll on, let the resignations continue, sweep out the barn (to use Ross Perot's terminology). Maybe that will leave top brass that is focused on the same thing we're focused on - the boys. Plus, probably save a lot of money otherwise spent on salaries of people who spend most of their time raising money to pay their salaries.

My original backpack dates to 1971. It has lost the coating but it has nylon zipppers. Thanks for the tip on rejuvenating the metal zippers, though, that was really useful. I think the fabric, unless it has been damaged by sunlight, could last a very long time. I have such great memories from using my old pack that I just can't part with it. H'mm, maybe I'll be cremated wearing it and my same-vintage boots. Have to die first, though. But I'd sure like to rejuvenate the pack somehow and use it again. Great memories.

We go to a water park. It is a large lake and we take canoes and camping gear for the weekend. The local theme parks all have laser tag so we don't go there as a troop. But the boys are free to assemble themselves there anytime they want, and do occasionally...just not as a troop activity.

One connection (there may be others) is that BSA is a legal charity. As such, it enjoys tax-exempt status and its contributors enjoy tax deductions. In this sense, government IS a partner in BSA'a financial dealings, not to mention the resulting subsidy that BSA enjoys as well. Any group that enjoys this status, and engages in practices that may affect funding and other financial dealings should properly be subject to scrutiny by any government that has granted that status. Or they can decline the status.

And I thought this was in reference to a movie showing to raise funds...definitely NOT appropriate.

I was a child of nature. I spent every waking moment that I could in the woods. No sports or other activities. Very few social interactions outside of scouts. Explains a lot. The boys today have far more distractions, many of them the result of some digital (and I don't mean fingers) technology. I took it all for granted, canoeing around a tropical island all summer, gathering coconuts, catching fish, gathering clams or oysters. And returning in the evening ready for sleep. It was the time of my life and I didn't even know it. But some of the best times recently are when, for example during an outing, I see a boy just sitting on a fallen log over a stream, deep in thought. I completely understand. Need to do it more often.

I'm not certain that ANY ethic necessarily originates from a supernatural source. Or have I misinterpreted your statement?

My wife, bless her soul, is always right and she is fond of saying that "scum rises to the top." It is a generality that may be overstated and prejudicial, but considering the executive branch.... An Epiphany! I just thought of a possible explanation why no professional scouters have joined this forum to engage us in discussions of ethics and morality. I suppose I could be wrong...

There's one near Chattanooga, TN that is worth considering. Raccoon Mountain Cave has a wild cave trip (guided) that is a great experience and you can sleep over in the cave if you want. It's a little farther out than the range you mentioned but we've done it many times now over the years and the boys (and I) always have a blast. Be advised, for about 6 hours you will crawl, squish, squeeze, and slither through some really great holes, mud, slides, and climbs. And then collapse into sleep in total darkness and the mud. Quite a workout.

I am reminded of the poem: SUCCESS To laugh often and much to win the respect of intelligent people and affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Remember, when you do climb that mountain and reach the pinnacle, if you tend to look DOWN on everyone else, you'll always be in a minority view.

That's a perfectly reasonable approach, Bob White. I like the automobile analogy. There are real laws: momentum, velocity, force, gravity. We don't have much ability to violate those. Then there are agreed laws: speed limits, rules of the road, etc. Then there are guidelines: proper maintenance of the vehicle, close the windows if it's raining, don't stare directly into the sun, (oops, that was for another thread). Barbosa said something like, "They're not so much rules but more like guidelines" in reference to the pirate's code. Arrgh! But he was cursed from violating a rule...so much for his wisdom. The Concise OED says a guideline is: "a general rule, principle, or piece of advice." Guidelines, as advice, offer the freedom to be violated. There are still potential consequences: wet car seats, overheated engines. As I remember, going into an uncharted wild cave, if you don't make a guideline going into it, or if you violate it along the way, you could 1) discover wonderful new things and have a great adventure, or 2) get hopelessly lost (which I suppose still qualifies as an adventure). And yet, given what I sometimes see regarding violations of G2SS, while I do try to wear the uniform correctly (and I still have those terrible nightmares about forgetting my socks), I just can't get overheated when others make mistakes wearing theirs. Especially if the DE standing next to him is even more out of whack. I'll try to devote my attention to the boys...and try to work on the 'curse of the forgotten socks'. Edited part: oops, typos and dyslexic fingers.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"If someone ignores rules that are there for all to follow but they put themselves above the law and I call the behavior self-centered can you prove me wrong?" I'm wondering, isn't ignoring "...rules that are there for all to follow...", you know, like, the same thing as putting oneself "...above the law"? To call this self-centered is one's privilege but at least the person so described is consistent, ignoring the same rules that the they put themself above. (It does seem that one would have to pay at least a little attention to the rule in order to decide to be above it. Just a thought) And proof? The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference between putting oneself above the law (aka ignoring it) and being self-centered. So far so good. It would be incumbent on experimental evidence to indicate that the two characteristics are not the same. If such evidence was statistically significant it could be accepted as a rejection of the null. But even a highly-significant result would not amount to 'proof'. I'm not sure that 'proof' is possible even for the strongest evidence. We would simply reject the null until future evidence caused us to re-examine the original idea. That is, unless a DEFINITION of 'self-centered' IS 'putting oneself above the law'. In which case proof in either direction is pointless as it is true by definition. Edited part: Back in the '70s, I and a co-worker actually did see some men running out of a bank, money and guns in hand. My co-worker said, "Hey look, they're making a movie.." I'm thinking there's another term for his observation. My reaction was a little more accurate but Politeness Man didn't fracture my skull with his steel hanky. Probably should have though.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Just a note. The perceived public reaction to a court action versus congressional action is irrelevant regarding the validity of either. As a matter of fact, I was in school just after the 1954 decision in Brown vs Board. Also during the subsequent actions cited in 1964 and 1965. From the view of this student, reaction in these parts (the South) was MUCH stronger and violent after the 1964 and 1965 actions.

Adrianvs, I second Trevorum's praise. Therefore to answer the question directly in a pedagogical manner, I would teach ethics the same way whether I had violated a rule or not. However, if I had violated a rule and was willing to discuss it, my failure might be a good case-in-point as an example of a thinking error. A person who is basically honest and who tries to be fair can still make thinking errors. If such a person learns from the error, it could actually give them an advantage when instructing young people. On the other hand, a person who is NOT basically honest, who tries to rationalize thinking errors, may be challenged in an attempt to teach ethics to anyone. Edited Part: Oooohh, I'm at the top of the page again! Parting shot: Someone (I think it was Bob White but I might be mistaken) a long time back used the exclamation, "Aunt Gertie's Garters". Man, that really creeped me out! And now Fuzzy Bear is talking about his. Eeeeuuuuuuuwwwwwww!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

John-in-KC, That was illuminating. There are a few other interesting things about the design and production. I only recently became aware that Army uniforms are 'scaled' in many ways. For example, the shirt pockets, in order to maintain a proportional appearance, are scaled in size depending on the size of the uniform. But this is limited by standards of utility (can't make them too doggone small). Or so I'm told by the apparel researchers. That and some similar properties make this a really challenging design and manufacturing problem, solved, I think, by computer automation. I had no idea there was so much detail. I wonder if scout uniforms even come close to this standard.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Fscouter, you got two of them right. Talking out of turn is never OK because it is not fair to the group. That is the underlying ethic for that rule, as I understand it. Although not all of the listed infractions are crimes, all of them can and sometimes do result in suspension. Ethical DECISIONMAKING is the part of the task that seems to be eluding people. The boys don't need us to rank those infractions. They've done that in the first few seconds after reading the rules. The decision-making process itself is what we're supposed to work on. If we never make such a decision ourselves or discuss the process, it seems to me that absent a decision-making example set by us, the boys are more likely to create the process for themselves. I follow the rules as I understand them. But I don't do this blindly and I discuss their merits (or lack thereof). But the principal is the one who makes the rules and whether a boy simply forgets to remove his pocketknife because he had it at the last troop meeting - or whether he consciously decided to bring it to school in order to carve on a desk, the infraction and punishment are the same. The decision-making process is the difference. And Fscouter's ISS for talking out of turn might have been avoided if he had the decision-making skills to understand the ethic behind that rule. You may now return to your class.

Welcome to the forums Hoomeye. My reactions are several. How sad it would be for a boy to be so deprived because his adult partner is undecided. I think it is important also to remember that all BSA asks for is your signature. Your faith is not under scrutiny by anyone except you, yourself. Therefore, YOU are the only person competent to decide. If you are not an atheist, then you must be considering the possibility of a 'higher power' (or some such) and my personal opinion is that you can be your son's Akela. Actually, even if you are an atheist and you can rationalize the decision in your mind to sign the form, you can still join. And it would be neither my business, nor anyone else's. In practice, THAT actually is BSA policy. Don't ask, don't tell. Welcome to scouting.

I've had a boy sleeping in my tent on numerous occasions...my son. Oops, I suppose that should be the 'son that I serve'. Regarding hierarchy, another real-life example. Middle-school rule violations: 1. Wearing short shorts 2. Chewing gum in class 3. Bringing a pocketknife to school 4. Possession of illegal drugs 5. Bringing a pistol to school 6. Talking out of turn in class 7. Engaging in a fist fight. Anyone care to rank those equally? And about setting examples...the boys are prohibited from using tobacco of any kind on official scout outings but adults are asked to use tobacco discreetly. Talk about mumbo-jumbo.

I'm curious too. What does it take to make uniforms for millions of people? I'm only familiar with the automated systems in the textiles research center for the university. They helped develop the manufacturing process for the U.S. Army.

Welcome back Twocubdad, Wow I hadn't noticed the ad. So much for the effectiveness of those panels. I wonder why they are advertising on a scouting forum to sell us a way to beat the rap? They could just send direct mail to the top brass in Irving and save a little cash. Apologies if someone already said this, if we simply read the rules and follow them, what is the ethical decision that we've made? We simply followed a rule. The decision was made for us. And if the police are reading this, I always follow the rules and if I ever forget my socks, I won't ask for a jury.

Thanks Scoutndad. But for the sake of clarity and accuracy, I have now edited that message twice since your post...in case anyone wonders.

I actually did this once with a boy. He said something about a law and I asked him why he felt that way. His response was impressive enough in its reasoning that I was disarmed of a counterargument (other than thumping the City Code at him). So I suggested a visit to the City Manager's office so both of us could learn the answer. And we did (actually the whole den went as part of advancement). And we both learned something. Worked out well I thought. The hierarchy of importance has been expressed to me many times by law enforcement officials. They have the discretion (read judgement) to weigh how much over the speed limit (just using an example I have read in these threads) a person is driving and decide whether to throw the book at them...or not. Or like Robocop, they can arrest every last one of us who exceeds it by even a little bit, no matter the circumstance. Edited Part: I just remembered, there were (are?) numerous small towns that do exactly this. And they make a fair amount of money for the town. Ludowici, GA comes to mind: http://www.speedtrap.org/speedtraps/comments.asp?state=GA&city=Ludowici&st=12749 "...honest Sheriff, I paid cash money for them chickens.." One more Edit: Anyone remember what Lester Maddox (Georgia's Governor) did because of the Ludowici reputation? He must have thought the law was 'stupid' as well. At some level, all of us who are part of society have to trust someone else's judgement. Sometimes this is good, sometimes not good. At the same time, I also see the value in the Robocop approach. It can be used effectively as a passive-aggressive way to protest something. As I express it to people working in large organizations, sometimes the best way to test a rule is for everyone to adhere to it faithfully, without exception, regardless of circumstances. It can force the issue and if it is a good rule, it will stand the test.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I can feel your pain.

Just for the record, I do place the rules in some sort of hierarchy of importance. However, this unit has not (nor do I encourage) bylaws or something similar. The existing rules confuse me enough as it is.