packsaddle

sctmom, I saw that too and I agree. I used to think that the 'Perry Mason' model was correct; where men murdered for money and women for love. But now money just seems to be all there is for some people. I see a child's face and I simply can't understand how anyone, especially a parent, could not see the same open, vulnerable, loving face that I see.

OGE, I liked that...that Philadelphia Eagle thing. Nice. I am thinking New Orleans Saints. The parents exploited a child during the commission of a crime. I hope a decent relative is able to take over childrearing.

NJ, You're probably rolling your eyes right now. This tower of Babel will likely top 15 floors easily. ScoutParent I want to thank you for choosing a small organization formed more than 5,600 years after the beginning of Judaism to represent the views of all Jews. However, here I want to defend being offensive. I should not think anyone in this thread is surprised that nearly all of us are offended by certain things. Just not the same things. I think this is fine. This issue (TJ) is not about being offensive or offended. It is about fairness and justice, topics on which we continue to disagree. If we refrain from expression just because someone finds it offensive, few of us will be able to express much. For example, most of us find cannibalism offensive, but in certain extreme circumstances we understand how it is justified. Most of us (I hope) would conclude that cannibalism is immoral in our society. If someone observed that Christians practice this in a ritual manner, it could deeply offend and possibly cause a new thread to form because such an immoral practice is in conflict with BSA values. But as far as I know, laws are not broken by the ritual, and Christians can pass the background check. If TJ passed the check, that should be sufficient. If someone is offended, they can complain loudly (as shown in this thread) and offer counter arguments...or they can pout. All of it is fine with me as long as our rights are not trashed...because someone is offended.

I have reconsidered the conciliatory way I have approached this issue. The problem of identity theft is very troublesome to me. And after following another thread on recordkeeping, I am a lot more critical of this new policy. Especially if BSA is going to collect and maintain sensitive personal information on the volunteers. After my experience with our troop records and after hearing all the similar experiences elsewhere, how can we trust these ham-handed clods to safeguard our identities where they can't even keep a list of former Eagle scouts?! For anyone paranoid that their name, SS#, birth date, and other information is in the custody of ignoramuses in some government agency, the thought of even less-capable yahoos in BSA holding that information should give them great pause. No, as custodians of records of any kind, they fail on the first point of the law, not maliciously, just stupidly. They can't be trusted. I won't hestitate to comply with the background check... but if my identity is 'borrowed' as a result, my reaction will be severe and with great prejudice.

shemgren, Please clarify. You said that BSA does not allow us to ask for donations. But also that BSA asks for donations. I am seeing a conflict. Am I missing something?

littlebillie, Your comments are some of the reasons that studies of animal behavior are so interesting...and difficult. And also good reason to study chemicals and plants at least part of the time. One way to diminish the confusion is to think in terms of genotypic vs phenotypic expression. We are well on the way to complete genotypic descriptions of many biota (but still far from understanding how it all works). This side is fairly 'hard' in its scientific rigor. We are fairly certain for simple traits (eye color, mid-digital hair, PKU disease) and just a few traits that have behavioral symptoms (Huntington's disease). But where an expression is not a disease or where it only influences a behavior, it remains a question. On the phenotypic side everything goes. For sexual identity, there is merely some evidence for a hypothetical genetic basis. I say hypothetical because the actual genetic basis has not been identified through experimentation or any other way. In some sense the confusion about animal behavior relates to why I am suspicious of the concept of 'nature'. I mentioned a while back that the concept of 'nature' has little utility because in its broadest respect, nothing is unnatural. (the supernatural spiritual world is, by definition, unnatural in this sense of course). Because humans are arguably rational beings, we have continuously tried to make sense of our observations of the world. We may sense patterns and subsequently describe them as 'order'. If such order is pleasant or beneficial, we may describe some 'purpose' to explain the existence of such order. The concept of 'natural law' comes to mind...and much of the tortured logic you see in all these threads. We cling to purpose and order so tenaciously that it leads us in fantastic directions and we sometimes engage in bizarre behavior. For example, in 1386 a trial was held in which the accused had allegedly disfigured a child. The accused stood before the court in a waistcoat, breeches, and with white gloves. The accused was sentenced to first receive similar maiming, then to be garroted and hanged at the village scaffold. The accused was, literally, a pig. Such examples are endless and extend up through the 1990s. My response would have been to try to heal the child and then hold a barbecue. But that would have been against the law. We like to think our behavior is more complex than other animals and I am willing to work on that assumption. You correctly point out that some behaviors are 'instinctive', meaning that they apparently are not learned. We have instincts as well and it should not be a shock if we learn that the adaptive advantage such instincts have imparted as a result of evolutionary processes have a genetic basis. We just don't know how the connection works and we don't know how strong it is. For any of them. The contention that sexual identity has a genetic basis is not outrageous. But the precise degree that the genotype ultimately influences the phenotype will not likely be resolved soon. In the meantime persons with one preconceived notion can continue to argue against the others based on precisely the same observations. You are correct that it is a difficult problem to resolve. But to mention another thread quickly engorging itself, I don't concern myself with TJ beyond his ability to pass the background check. If I shared a tent with him my only concern would be how loud he snored (I'm probably just as bad).

ScoutNut, The 'cut' I refer to has caused some dissention around our council in the past. There must be some variation from council to council. Our council, for example, told my unit that we could not approach any organization (read local businesses) for charitable contributions that might compete with the council fundraising drive (in other words the council can go begging but we can't). But I am curious. If the CO holds the raffle, is quiet about their intentions, but does intend to fund the trip, the spirit is violated. But BSA, having no clue to their intent, silently approves anyway. But, if someone slips and lets the intent be known publicly, I assume some action is taken. What action? And now my confidence is shaken. Our unit has done barbecue fundraisers in the past. We advertised them as means to buy equipment for the troop. Some persons, wanting to help, have merely given us substantial donations as a result of this visibility. Did we violate something?

RobK, "Just because some religion somewhere says a thing is OK, doesn't mean the rest of us should accept it in our organization or society." This would also apply if the "religion somewhere" said a thing was immoral. Your list is interesting, though. I wonder, is it really the same if a god sanctions the killing? Susan Smith wasn't performing a religious ritual, was she? Is there a religion that really approves of cold-blooded murder (excluding human sacrifice in its various forms)?

kwc57, I understand. More than just a few I fear. The trouble with a name is that persons easily apply a name and thereby think they have explained something. Or they apply it to themselves and thereby think they understand something. Both are deceptions in their own way. It may be fun to use the term 'left-wing liberal' in the pejorative or 'bed-wetting conservative' for that matter. But, thus limited, the discussion is fairly superficial. Discussion of ideas is easier and more meaningful if not burdened by this stuff.

NJ, That is a lot more detail than I have ever considered. I would be glad for anyone interested to take a place on our troop committee, we have trouble filling all the slots. Our CO does have a budget line for our troop to cover registration fees for all the volunteer leaders and the chartering fee. But our troop has its own checking account, independent of the CO. For other reasons I have tried to get this moved back to the CO for management because it would actually allow greater access by the troop and, I think, less chance of error (I could be wrong). And donations to the church (earmarked for the troop) would be deductable. I suppose every situation has unique features. I suppose there is a potential problem with control but as mentioned before, the CO owns everything.

sctmom, I sympathize. I had a similar experience with my son (special ed and all) but years of effort have paid off. (Some school officials also have some bruised egos.) I have observed other troops that are very intolerant of kids like him. Some of those gravitate to our troop, some just drift away. Sometimes the boy really does need an experience that is outside scouting and there are plenty of alternatives. I include below an intriguing possibility: http://www.congressionalaward.org/congress/about/about_who.htm I think the parents are the best judges in all cases so I never encourage them against their own judgement. My son is truly ADD, probably me too. We had to work with him starting at age 4. But he is now finishing High School with honors (AP courses and all) and has been granted early acceptance at a tough university. Last year he completed his Eagle. It is almost scary how straight an arrow he turned out to be. I say this so you will know that good things are always possible, if not easy. I made an agreement with him regarding Scouts at a time when he was faltering...if he would make it to 1st Class, then he could make his own decision about the trail to Eagle. That was acceptable to him and he chose wisely - and he knows it. Your son is a bright guy and he'll tell you in his own way what he really wants. I think you are doing great.

kwc57, Hold back the cavalry for just a bit. I agree with your sentiments. I said 'true' conservative. I see precious few of those out there in the land of 'shock', Coulter included. I suppose 'neutral' is always a reach but I couldn't think of a better term. To me a true conservative wants to conserve personal freedom and civil liberties. Most so-called conservatives seem to want to selectively take those away (from those other people). A true conservative should CONSERVE, whether rights or money or energy or natural resources. The so-called conservative groups we know have corrupted the term.

johnsned, Has my memory completely failed me? (don't answer that) I thought we ALREADY consented to this on the old leader application forms.

You can find expert information on concrete composition and behavior at the Geotechnical/Structures Laboratory, one of the research labs for the US Army. They design fortifications, runways, bridges, missile silos, etc. and test them under battlefield conditions. A link below: http://www.wes.army.mil/SL/gsl.html I can give you a name and telephone number if you want.

TJ, If you passed the background check that's all I need to know. Your sexual identity is none of my business (and no-one else's for that matter) but if you care to reveal it that's ok with me. You're welcome at my campfire any time. I do appreciate the sensitivity of those mincing words about all this, though. NJ, I think 15 is a fair estimate. Sagerscout, You ruined me, I'll never think of 'jump the gun' the same way again. RobK, which religions are they that consider murder as good or moral? I don't mean legal executions, but murder in the sense of Charles Manson, Susan Smith, the real deal.

KS, I am not sure I completely agree. If a CO wants to hold a raffle, they are free to do so. If they subsequently choose to budget a large sum for their unit, say, for a trip to Philmont, I think they are still free to do so. I would hope that the boys would do service for the CO but not necessarily in a quid pro quo manner. As I understand it, such raffle could not employ BSA symbols or be advertised as a benefit for BSA unless BSA gave its approval (read, got their cut).

Is there some mystery as to why we are all in agreement that bias exists (most of us anyway)? Hypothetically, if a truly neutral account of events is reported, extreme viewpoints all would consider this truly neutral position to be biased against them. Everyone would perceive bias (just not in the same directions), we're so vain. The media make most of their income from advertising. They sell their one greatest resource...the listeners (readers, watchers)...to the advertisers (it's the advertisers that try to sell us those widgets). For good ratings, the media must attract US. If there is a bias, then it usually is biased along our tendencies as an audience. Let's face it, rightwing talk shows ARE entertaining (by the way, don't forget Hamblin and Boortz). I enjoy listening to criminals read newspapers (mispronounced and misread as it sometimes is). And I enjoy the outrageously inaccurate statements as much as their good points (there are a few, come on, admit it) Korea, I would submit that a truly conservative viewpoint is close to neutral. If WSJ has a bias, it is probably pro-business, not pro-life. Adam Smith's idea of 'laizze-faire', applied to capitalism, is close to neutral, would you not agree?

le Voyageur, to your original question I would say 'no', largely for the reasons Rooster mentions. But Rooster, one thing you said brought back a vivid memory,"...those folks and their supporters who would force their will on private organizations..." In a similar situation longer ago than I like to admit, my minister and I worked on God and Country for long hours each week for a couple of years. He was in the midst of a crisis and he confided his pain to me. And I learned then to appreciate the struggle for truth. He alone at our church (Presbyterian) was in support of desegregation. He stuck with his conscience and preached the same. A few short weeks after I received the award he was fired. A lesson of majority rule that I will never forget. littlebillie, as with artistic talent and other traits, I doubt that anything more than a genetic propensity will ever be found for homosexuality. For this and most other behaviors the nature/nurture argument will live on...we have so much to look forward to. As for foisting one faith above others,...don't give them any ideas now. NJ, I have never observed even a slight tendency for BSA to turn its back on science for the reasons you mention. However, I doubt this is due to their cleverness of intellect.

imascouter, I am saddened to hear that my experience with BSA recordkeeping is not an isolated one. I recently had several 'scares' with Eagle candidates whose records had 'disappeared' or 'evolved' in the council records (Larry, Moe, and Curly must work there somewhere). I scrambled to produce the advancement forms that we fill out at each board of review. The council told me that THAT was the official record (take note, Eagle69). Luckily, I was able to reconstruct their records. My troop uses the blue cards but the council uses poor photocopies of handwritten requirement sheets at the summer camp. It is embarrassing. As I have stated in other threads, I have never seen an organization that so desperately wanted to be like the military...and failed so miserably at it.

Conspiracies? Hitler youth? Twilight Zone? What a great way to avoid eBay! I for one am a little surprised that this is an issue. I was under the impression that the wording of the application I signed years ago allowed BSA or the chartering organization to do pretty much what they pleased for background checks. Was I wrong? And for years I have been under the impression given me by our council that the checks were the responsibility of the chartering organization. Ours did this at least 4 years back as part of their own checks for their non-BSA youth volunteers. But they produced their own release document that pretty much allowed them to pry into EVERY aspect of our lives including finances, magazine subscriptions, medications, etc. I pointed this out and the fact that the words "confidential" and "privacy" weren't mentioned. They were apologetic and admitted they had 'borrowed' the wording from a local industry job application (glad I don't work for them). A question, is BSA going to require this of Cub Scout den leaders too? How about merit badge counselors? Help me out here. This could be a huge continuing cost considering the turnover rates I have observed. I'm with you Korea, let's devote resources to revising the scout literature or bringing BSA into the 20th century for their recordkeeping (the 21st is probably asking too much).

Ok Rooster, I'll back off. I am in agreement with your feelings on what NAMBLA represents. Sadly, if they disbanded it would not eliminate what they represent, only the organization. I see tremendous good in BSA programs and that is why I came to aid a troop in need of leadership. I just think BSA is wrong to try to stifle opposition in a manner that affects the boys and in a way I think does not live up to the principles of our Constitution. I admit that I can put people off sometimes...I refer you to my namesake: http://troyb.com/photo/gallery/new_00007220.htm A very long time ago, I showed one of these to my neighbor, a nice elderly gentleman who had lived in our mill village all his life. He announced that it was what they called a 'packsaddle'. I liked the term immediately. From the dictionary of American Regional English: "packsaddle worm" A saddleback caterpillar (one with stinging hairs). (Esp southern Appalachians) It sort of fits, doesn't it? Peace.

Thanks for clarification Rooster and OGE, (by the way OGE, I never REALLY thought you were Bob White). And the assertion that someone in this forum would put their own spin on something...Nooooo! I wouldn't apply the term 'Pharisee' to anyone on the volunteer side. And BSA leadership, well they're really just wannabees when it comes to Phariseedom.

Rooster, sheesh, didn't you read the last sentence? As for banging, I don't understand WHAT you're blathering about. BSA adopts, members are dictated to. As for noble fights, if someone is willing to stand up for what they honestly believe, as far as I am concerned that is noble even if they are likely not to prevail. I'm here for the boys and while I'm here I'll exercise my voice. If that bothers you or anyone else, that's just too bad. And the "As an accused "right wing conspirator"" thing...what? The whole world is not out to get you. It's not all about YOU. KWC, Are you saying that OGE was also Bob White? Why would someone bother doing that? Another thing I don't get. What does that have to do with Rooster? Is he also someone else? Merlyn, perhaps? This is confusing.

It is pointless to argue what is or is not 'natural'. The problem with the concept of nature is that it means so many different things to different persons and in different contexts. One dictionary definition defines nature as, "the material world and its phenomena". I found this is more than one dictionary. Another defines, "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing." Good grief! And later, "the external world in its entirety." These are from several different dictionaries, all Webster's. This all-encompassing definition begs the question, 'Then what, if anything, is unnatural?' The facile answer is, 'nothing in the material world and its phenomena'. The tough answer is that the concept 'nature' may not be a useful concept for understanding our world. Another approach is that 'nature' doesn't necessarily address 'spiritual' matters. And we all know how successful we are at agreeing on spiritual matters. Much of what we may never understand about life (but nevertheless argue endlessly) has to with that spiritual side. And playing games with nebulous terms is likely to provide neither clarity nor agreement. As a biologist, my eyes roll when I hear this stuff. Just vote on it.

Wow, my eyes deceived me again. Rooster, I think I read that you thought joining BSA was like joining a Christian church. Let's see, "Also, since the BSA's policies are fairly well known (blah, blah, blah), I think it is disingenuous to join their organization (blah, blah, blah) and then trying to inspire a revolt to change their values. It's like joining a Christian church and then trying to convince its members that Jesus was not the Messiah." Yes, you did! You said that today, joining BSA is like joining a Christian church. Anyone else catch this? By the way, I mentioned to my kids that someone with whom I correspond thinks I am a pain in the behind. They said, "so what else is new?" My own children, tsk, tsk! From the mouths of babes... Don't worry, I get your point.