packsaddle

I have an entire unit that is nearing the age for this and now I am fairly alarmed. I don't expect mishaps but I do expect adequate protection in that case. Marinelaw, what do you see as a solution? Perhaps seek an alternative commercial charter?

Hunt, I agree, nice post. NeilLup, I appreciate your point as well. Trail Pounder, Ghandi and Mandela both helped deliver greater freedom to majorities in their countries. I agree with your opinions of our patriots and presidents. However, I think Martin Luther King and the movement he represented forced our country to review our conscience regarding what it means to be a citizen. The good that he and the civil rights movement did was not limited to the benefit of minorities but to the benefit of all Americans, including you. Perhaps you could elaborate on your views of him and civil rights? And the issue of a holiday: I'd support elimination of any or all holidays if they are so divisive to our society.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I have always wondered why a child would be punished because of a parent's belief. I know atheist (some might be agnostic) parents who send or take their children to local churches of different flavors because they recognize the need for these young people to make informed decisions for themselves. I'm not certain but I believe that a few of the boys are in scouts (not this unit, though). It seems that a boy could conform to the rules while the parent didn't. Is this not the case?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

My family had a terrible brush with a drunk driver years ago. I can't adequately express my contempt for an adult who allows something like this, much less promotes it.

For all the years of my marriage, mine has been through my nose. I sure hope she doesn't see this.

Great topic, I hope it applies to inland waters as well. Most of the boys in this unit are too young to attend SeaBase so I only have the word of others to go by. However, many small craft ARE capable of carrying more than 6 passengers (most pontoons actually) and I agree with the jist of the post. I see scout units on the water sometimes in my work, often with more than 6 on the craft (I've seen double that on occasion). I doubt they are aware of the regulation mentioned in the original post. They are only occasionally all in lifejackets. Moreover, even when the scouts ARE, the leaders often are NOT, setting a bad example. I sometimes am able to mention this to them. They sometimes ignore me. After losing friends to unexpected circumstances on the water many years ago, I am very sensitive to these water safety issues. I would like to hear more.

OK, While I'm waiting for an answer from the SE, does anyone ELSE know the answer? Bob White isn't going to supply the info...if he knows it. It is interesting to know these things and also what parts of the country are represented by their (the youth members) participation on the committees. So far only one respondent (I think) has mentioned knowledge of committee members but didn't mention whether they were youth or not. Anyone else?

Bob White, You are correct, I don't know any that sit on committees. I am still curious though: How many youth members do sit on committees? How are they chosen? What are the committees? If I have a youth member who wants to participate at this level, how do I advise them to proceed? I will ask my pros to see how their answers compare with yours. However, none of this answers the question of why BSA does not articulate a clear policy on dissent. It is the question I was attempting to answer, and I could be wrong about my answer. What's the correct one?

There are many examples, good and bad, of leadership and self-deception in the film. So many, in fact, that the girls may need a little help keeping track. But the story line is so easy that it helps resolve things. The main thing is to follow the main characters who accept different roles of leadership and also the sibling-rivalry aspect and its destructive element. There are many lessons buried in the story. Hope this helps.

I just remembered another good one: 'A League of Their Own' The story of the women's professional baseball league. My daughter really enjoyed it, so did I.

asked and answered. I am curious, though. How many youth members sit on national committees? How many and which of those committees determine membership rules?

I was under the impression that membership also included the young men. But to answer your question, I'm not certain. An estimate, as if it matters, 100-n-500. I'm fairly sure that none of them has influence on membership rules. "The BSA's program and its core values would be perfectly fine and intact if the exclusion of gays was removed, especially if each CO were permitted to decide for itself whether to remove the exclusion..." I agree. Sincerely, Mr. Ilk(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

tut, tut, tut, satellite sputtering...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Laurie, I do understand your conflicting questions. Each of us as individuals must resolve them in the best way we can. That is, after all, where the responsibility resides. And it seems unlikely for such resolution to come either from BSA or from these forums. BSA is essentially a private club with exclusionary membership rules. It also has a good product for the members who qualify. There is nothing in the rules that says a member cannot criticize or question the operation of the club. However as Bob White describes, I suspect accurately, there is also an ill-defined or unarticulated code that will result in ejection if a member becomes too visible in his/her criticism. eisely has difficulty with the nebulous code. Twocubdad has plenty of unanswered questions. Evmori also questions this. NJ, me, probably many others wonder about it as well. So why doesn't BSA detail a policy on this in direct terms to the membership? And then apply it equally to them? Aside from the plethora of other potential answers, I surmise that BSA doesn't do this because they don't have to. It seems to me that the membership simply HAS NO SAY IN MAKING THE MEMBERSHIP RULES, or at least no members that I know. To me it would be better even if something as basic as THAT was clarified one way or the other.

Laurie, the satellite is not working well just now, I'll get the whole response out later.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Bob White, I think this discussion is about dissent within a single species. That is, unless you consider anyone who dissents to have rights equivalent to a gnat. Ever hear of the Dred Scott decision?

Twocubdad, I also noted that Eisely equated BSA to a company that has a defective product. But I decided not to comment publicly. The 'disorder' that Bob White mentions may be that which occurs privately in BSA after some public dissent. But it's difficult to interpret him sometimes, I admit.

Just in case you're not sure, I don't advocate commerce in human lives regardless of age. "I am not saying if you disagree on anything to quit. I am saying if you do not accept the policies or core values don't join, and if you join and discover that your values disagree with the organization, quit." I must be reading this the wrong way somehow. Does anyone else see a contradiction? The compromise here is to abide by rules, some of which a person may not agree with, in order to achieve something good for a child. If your characterization is correct, BSA reacts badly to public displays of dissent by members. This implies that they tolerate member dissent as long as it is private (similar to their tolerance of gays who are not publicly 'avowed'). In essence, by keeping his dissent out of public eye, NJ is, in fact, conforming to what BSA wants him to do. He does not violate the rules and he does not dissent in public. He compromised his right to free speech in order to provide his son with something good. I think this is noble. I am merely saddened that BSA considers their ideas so weak that they cannot be subjected to public criticism by members who are interested in the program. In effect, BSA reserves that right only for outsiders. Do you think that is a good thing?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Here's a link for it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/088240489X/102-4375597-9028924?v=glance Hit the button for more product details for reviews and descriptions. The dissertation, ahem, I'm afraid isn't worth much after the dedication.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'll inject a review from the Y-chromosome perspective. I saw it back when it first came out and liked it very much. I was sorry that the competition was so stiff at the Academy Awards, the film should have received more recognition. I would think it would be great for Girl Scouts. There are a couple of true-life stories that I know of that have been made into films and a couple that I wish would be made into films. One of the former is 'Out of Africa' but perhaps too mature for the girls, I'm not sure. The latter would be a film about the life of Margaret Murie from her book "Two in the Far North". Now she REALLY had an adventure. Come to think of it, the girls would probably benefit from reading a book from time to time as well. Edited part: About "The Wizard of Oz", that's one of my favorites too. My dedication at the front of my dissertation is a quote, from near the end of the film, by the Wizard to the Scarecrow, "...Back where I come from we have universities, seats of great learning -- where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts -- and with no more brains than you have.... But! They have one thing you haven't got! A diploma!" I sort of thought it fit the occasion. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'm trying to remember the few organizations that I have agreed with completely...thinking...I'll have to get back to you with the answer. If I read correctly what Bob White seems to advocate, if things don't go the way a person wants, they should just quit. I think a more mature approach would be either to work toward compromise or to try to change the situation. To me, a quitter is a poor role model.

Laurie, your question is a good one. NJ covers part of the answer in the manner he asks his questions. From what I have learned in this forum and from what I have learned directly from BSA, there is no good answer for you. BSA, as some would say, needs no line drawn for you to cross. They can revoke your membership at any time. Period. It might be as a result of bad words...or bad hair. BSA is free to associate, or disassociate at will. Furthermore nothing demands an explanation from them. Bob White's post goes to the essence of the issue posed by Hunt at the beginning. The action taken against Unitarian boys demonstrates that Bob White is quite correct in his assessment. The conflict I sense in Hunt's original post is one I feel as well. If BSA is chartered by our Congress and if BSA's program purports to teach and promote the principles of our Constitution (ie, through the citizenship MBs, etc.), it seems to be a conflict when its conduct goes against those same principles it claims to promote. The judgement that "association" trumps "expression" is evidently the rationale that prevails today. Edited part: Bob White must have hit the submit button moments (3 minutes, 12 seconds actually) after I did. I do want to comment on one of his points. The test of whether or not certain speech does damage to the program (or similar tests) is quite subjective. Hence, no clear line is drawn. As you compose your thoughts you may also consider the absence of such clarity, and the potential consequences of your speech. You may detect a 'squelch' button. You are correct.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

NJCubscouter, I am going to make a leap of faith and assume that one of the responses on this topic that you read in another thread was mine. I now wish to inform you (and anyone else) that when I mentioned hate-speech by volunteer leaders and professionals, this was not uniquely aimed at persons of African origin (or any other dark skin color for which the n-word was attached to some prefix like wood- or sand-). Such speech at different times was also directed at Jews (I still can't tell the difference somehow, but I can't seem to spot gays or atheists either). There was a special fervor against miscegenation (also Biblically based: persons practicing this acted almost as if it wasn't unnatural, and it was a long time before I could spell it). Also communists (I wasn't sure how to spot one of these until college, then I took an economics course - they're the ones, I think, we're not supposed to sell rope to for some reason). And finally (you might want to sit down for this one)...Catholics (Kennedy backlash, I assume - anyway they, you know, drank alcohol in church). I just wanted to note that prejudice can be painted with a broad brush, usually held firmly by the hand of ignorance. We can argue about whether BSA led or trailed...but either way it definitely has improved.

I am an ASM without a boy still in scouts. The other leaders with boys in the troop entrust this to me. Although I don't do it often, so far everyone is pleased with the results. Just do what is best for the boys.

"The BSA has NEVER endorsed racism." I never said they did. I said that I felt that the actions I observed were an implicit nod, not an explicit one. This is the way I felt at that time, and in retrospect, I still think I was correct. "There is no way that you as an individual had enough exposure to enough situations involving enough people to paint the entire program with so broad a brush." I reported what I experienced personally as a boy, not rumors or headlines. Of course an early teenager in the South could not judge beyond his experience. I did not intend to paint the program with a broad brush, only to point out that such things did happen in the past. "But do not for a minute try to say that the BSA in any way condoned or allowed such behavior." I was a young boy, soaking up all I saw and experienced. I listened to volunteer and professional leaders engage in racial and other types of hate-speech. They were not just a few. I lived my life in the South, so when I observed the professional scouters setting those examples, is it not reasonable to conclude that this was the intent? It was certainly known at the council level (since pros were doing it), and evidently condoned. "You have no more reason to make that claim than the racists who slandered the BSA's image had in unwarranted behavior." I claim to have personally witnessed something that, given the nature of the individuals involved, had to be known at higher levels. I admit my conclusion is an opinion. But my experience is unassailable.