packsaddle

It sounded to me like Brewmeister implied that HE had changed aliases - and that's why you might be mistaken about how long he's been around the forums. I could be wrong.

Perhaps you guys would enjoy these blasts from the past: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=105837#id_105837 and http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=51342#id_51342 and there are even more back there in the archives. Enjoy...

FWIW, I've finally become disgusted with both of the major parties and their campaigns, disgusted enough to decide to support the Libertarian ticket. I've decided to support Gary Johnson.

The full impact of all this is still coming I think. But this CO sounds similar to the one RememberSchiff mentions. There have always been long-standing questions and concerns about being the CO for a BSA unit, questions that so far we've gotten past because of the unit's success and outreach. But this is going to make those voices louder and more difficult to defend against. Why? The answer is not only the YP stuff that is looking pretty negative right now, but also the reaction to this idea, expressed just now by quazse, "...kids who aren't suited for scouting...", the long-standing criticism that the CO youth program should be for all CO youth, not just a few select ones. The combination of the discriminatory nature of the unit combined with the facts and appearances from this new publicity...I'm not looking forward to either the new wave of criticism OR having to figure out how to defend against it. It makes me tired just thinking about it. If the CO decides to merely 'port' the current unit leadership (which seems to have their confidence with regard to YP) into a non-BSA program modeled after the previous one but on an inclusive basis, I'm going to find it difficult to make an argument against it. But in the meantime I'll wait and see what develops.

Well, it's REALLY in the news around here now! Headlines, leading stories on TV, etc. People who know me are starting conversations about other topics with reference to this stuff. The CO is re-examining things. I mean...as far as I know, there has never been something like this to happen around here and despite that fact people seem be ready to touch a hair trigger. It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out. I want to add...I'm thankful for these forums. The give and take I've read and participated in over the years has, I think, better prepared me for the discussions I think I'm about to engage in around here.

Sorry, I've already heard far more about all this than I wanted to.

If this CO decides not to recharter this unit, well over 50 years old, this unit will fold.

Are any units chartered by the Klan?

At one time I was impressed by position and power. After working in the private sector, then the federal government, and now in higher education, I have over the years cultivated a healthy skepticism with regard to administration. First, at least within my small realm of inquiry, I am the authority. I have mastered the field, designed and proposed projects and courses, and then executed those plans successfully. In every aspect of my professional career(s) administrators at best have been able to provide an easier path for me to actually do the work. Those cases are rare. Most of the time they seem to be little more than 'percentage parasites' who think success comes from creating new forms to fill out. Often the best way for them to help me is to merely step aside. I have come to expect nothing more than that at best. BSA seems to conform to my view. I have not yet encountered a DE who actually facilitated something. What we get from the council level seems to be nothing but a continual hand out to get something from us, either as more forms to fill out, or for outright donations. This unit tends to go it alone. Going it alone has worked well. It gives us a greater sense of accomplishment as well as the freedom to politely decline...when asked by the administrative types. Yes, we still take the required training and file the proper forms which are also required. That's all part of life it seems. But beyond that, it's been years since I wasted my time at a roundtable. Even longer since I vainly attempted to communicate some concern to someone at the council level. It is working nicely for this unit, this part of local option is. What we've gained is independence, freedom to take the initiative, freedom to express our imagination, and a LOT more time to devote to the unit and the boys. BSA is not life. BSA is not a religion. BSA is not a cult. ...despite occasional appearances to the contrary.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

It does. I'm not so interested in punishing the boy. What I'd really like to do is to get to the person(s) who supplied the alcohol to him and then hurt them. Badly. Tobacco, OTOH, isn't likely to hurt other people as much has alcohol can, mostly the boy himself. And I consider his beliefs to be something for him to sort out. None of my business.

Eagle732, I'd ask him how he acquired the alcohol and inform him that I'm referring this to the police for further investigation. That would be the end of it. No signature, pending the outcome of the police investigation. The rest is less important AFAIC.

Warning: trivia ahead! Basementdweller relates a conversation: "Mr. B isn't it horrible...." It was not someone named 'Betty' but rather it was 'Hazel' who referred to the man as 'Mr. B'. But thanks for the blast from the past anyway. Egad, now I even have the theme music playing in my head...

Basementdweller, in the first example the boy committed the act at age 13. Are you saying he can't turn himself around in 5 years? In the second example, the boy DIDN'T get Eagle. Bad example.

Careful there, Cambridgeskip! You're making nldscout and SeattlePioneer look like examples of the British model. You sure you want that? OK, OK...they can be 'French'. Edit to add: I can't remember who used this quote but I've always liked it. "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution. Ulysses S. Grant See, to me THIS is also a model for passive aggressiveness. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

If the CO accepts them, if the BSA accepts them, then who am I to go against the actual authorities? Nldscout, to use your own personal example, BSA is the 'judge' in this case. I accept that. DADT might not be the rule YOU like but it IS the way membership is decided by BSA. This is the reality YOU need to learn to live with. If you want to argue your point, argue with BSA about THEIR practice. I merely agree with them and conform to their membership practice. SeattlePioneer, in your pathetic, sex-obsessed world, I am not surprised by your opinion that the gay mom of a cub scout and any law-abiding atheist is no different from a convicted felon/sex offender. I do thank you for being clear and honest about your prejudice.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

So I watched carefully as I drove back and forth across La, Ms, Al, Ga, SC, and NC over the last week or so. I saw less than 20 Obama stickers, mostly in Atlanta, a few in Charlotte. But surprisingly I only saw a few dozen, maybe as many as fifty, Romney stickers. I saw nothing BUT Romney at the festival I attended though (deep in Cajun country). There is just no way the deep South is going to vote for a Democrat.

qwazse, or anyone really, if BSA practices DADT with respect to these things, why do so many of us feel the need to take it beyond that? There is NOTHING in the training that states that we must detect gays or atheists and 'turn them in' for violations of membership policies. If DADT is good enough for BSA, it seems like it ought to be sufficient for the rest of us. Look, I sympathize with the view that DADT inherently encourages deception. But BSA is the one that is promoting that deception. As Pint noted, BSA has painted itself into a corner.

If the application passes the background check, and if BSA signs off, then that's that. If I detect criminal activity by either adult or boy, I act immediately. But your examples are ludicrous. At present, a 13-year-old female can't be a youth member of a troop (but I'd welcome a change in that policy). She's not going to be able to hide her gender from the CO. A female CAN be an adult leader and I have no problem with that. The other two examples (registered sex offender and convicted felon) are improper comparisons to someone's sexual orientation or religious beliefs. Do you really think these things are equivalent? If the application process proceeds correctly, I won't have to lift a finger. The CO or BSA will discover those facts during the background check and the applications denied or revoked. Besides, what makes you think I will know these facts in the first place? Do you really think some criminal is going to confide to me, when I give them an application, that they are a sex offender or a convicted felon? Earth to nldscout...earth to nldscout....

I'm with Trevorum on this. What he describes hasn't happened to me but I'd respond the way he did. OTOH, I think that I do know of gay or atheist scouts AND scouters. They signed the application. BSA accepted them. End of story. Their sexual preferences and belief systems are none of my business so I keep my nose out of it. It isn't my duty to be one of the BSA membership police.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Buddhism is one of those religions that really lends itself to syncretism." I don't know about Buddhism but Christianity sure did a pretty good job of that. Oak Tree, the religious awards, as I understand them, are for those particular faiths and can be earned by any youth, not just scouts. BSA merely recognizes some of them. But not all youth who earn those religious awards are scouts. If you're implying that BSA's standards are somewhat ambiguous or unclear, I agree. Here's what BSA had to say about it in a question/answer document dated 7 June 1991: "Q. Some people maintain that God is a tree, a rock or a stream. Would a person believing such be eligible to be a member of Scouting? The BSA does not seek to interpret God or religion. The Scout Oath states a requirement for a Scout to observe a duty to God, and the Scout Law requires a Scout to be reverent. Again, interpretation is the responsibility of the Scout, his parents and religious leaders." So if rock worship meets the standard as you read it, all is well. Seems to me that if the interpretation (as BSA clearly states) "is the responsibility of the Scout, his parents and religious leaders" then everyone else, including BSA, should just butt out.

"There is a general duty to propagate the race..." Setting aside the use of 'general' and 'race' for another discussion, and assuming you're thinking about people and not NASCAR, I'd like to know where you think this so-called 'duty' comes from. In nature I'd suggest that plants, for example, do not have a sense of 'duty', but they sure do devote nearly every aspect of their lives to 'propagation'. 'Duty' is something which we impose on ourselves by choice. And we can also choose NOT to view propagation as a duty.

As one of my teenaged students might respond, rolling her eyes..."What-EV-er!" The question, nevertheless, is 'raised'.

Yeah, I thought this was really cool too. Someone finally cleaned up that litter.

Oak Tree wrote, "I could also ask, how does the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting reconcile Buddhist beliefs with the BSA membership requirement?" I can't speak for the Buddhists but my take on this is that they don't have to reconcile anything. The exclusionary policy is BSA's so if BSA accepts Buddhists then BSA has done the reconciliation. They evidently haven't made it clear to you how they did it. Nor to me. My point is that on the basis of YOUR standard, Buddhists would be excluded. But BSA accepts them. Therefore YOUR standard is in conflict with BSA's. How do YOU reconcile that? Eamonn, I agree. I suspect there is a lot more to this than we're reading, though. Cambridgeskip, I'm looking forward to that answer to your question about 'natural law'. I just wish he'd keep his sexual obsessions more to himself - it begs the question: how does he know so much about this stuff? But really, I don't WANT to know the answer to THAT part.

As the forums were swirling round and round, quickly being swallowed by Charybdis, I noticed that the very last person to post anything before the attack was a member called 'Digitalscout'. I wonder.....