Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I think yeh want to avoid mixing up issues, concernedparent. So often when people get upset about one thing they feel a need to go and point out all of the mistakes and foibles someone else has made in the last 10 years. That works about as poorly in organizations as it does in marriages. The pizzas are an irrelevant side issue, and the question of whether or not the person is the right one to hold the SM position going forward is one for the committee and CO to take up at recharter time, with careful consideration of the options. Let those be. Right now, you're just raising an advancement question. That's the SM's call, and so it's best addressed to the SM and not to the committee. I appreciate that the fellow may have strong opinions. Honestly, most good SMs do have a bit of the "my way or the highway" approach to parents, because part of their job is to protect some space for the boys. But just because the fellow may be hard to work with doesn't give us the option of being discourteous. In fact, it's in such cases that we give our kids the best example of courtesy. So I think, in all courtesy, you need to approach the SM with this question and some suggestions. You might share some or all of this thread with him. I would do that personally, and privately or with one other parent. I would not think it appropriate to ambush him in a committee meeting without having at least spoken to him personally beforehand, with enough time for him to consider the issues before the committee meeting. Very best, Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm... I come at this from a different direction, eh? I see a parent at wits end, and a family in need. Most packs don't have the resources to do this well, but some COs do. Is there anyone in your pack or Chartered Partner who can approach the parent in a non-threatening way and provide some direction to family counseling? Raising such issues is always fraught with risk, but if the mom is really as on edge as what you've described, she perhaps might be at the point where she might be open to that sort of help. Barring that, at the point when other adults don't want to or don't feel capable of dealing with the lad, and they don't want their own kids around him, I think you have to give serious consideration to illuminating the "Exit" sign. Either way, I really don't like going to a parents' committee with this sort of thing. That can just be a mess. It's the kind of thing that is often best dealt with by a smaller group, like the CM, CC, DL and COR or UC. B Beavah

Ah, the dread pullup requirement. Welcome to da forums, concernedparent. First, let me just say that advancement is only one part of scouting, and in many ways a small part. Is your son having fun? Is he learning things, becomin' more independent? Scouting is about a lot more than earning patches. Second, rank advancement is like a video game. Boys play it because it's fun, but they can get stuck at a level for a while. That's OK, as long as they keep blasting away at it. The things yeh see boys get stuck on most frequently these days are the physical fitness and swimming requirements. Maybe because troop are too lax about some of da other "hard" things, or maybe because of just how our modern society is or whatnot. What usually happens is what others describe, eh? The boy gets all the other requirements done, then finishes the one that's "hard" for him and advances rapidly to First Class. Should the SM set the standard that he or she has? As yeh can see here, folks will debate that. For me, I think your SM's interpretation is the one that makes the most sense. But yeh will find SM's who feel sorry for a boy and let him slip by with a fractional pullup, just as yeh will find SMs who let weak swimmers by if they drown in a forward direction for the required distance. That's just judgment and discretion. Nothing your SM is doing is wrong, and it's his/her call. As to the "setting up for failure" bit. For an 11 year old boy, not being able to do a single pullup puts the boy in the bottom 30% for his age group in the country. So unlike the other Tenderfoot fitness requirements where the lad can get credit for improving maybe 1% in his fitness (from 12 pushups to 13), a boy who is weaker in this component may need to improve by 10% or 20% or more before he's able to make the one pullup. That takes a lot more work. Still, it's somethin' that any boy who isn't obese can usually manage in 2-3 months of consistent effort. Yeh can find all sorts of programs like the "20 Pullups" stuff on the internet that provide a progression for training purposes. As boys get older, they naturally add some upper body strength so that by the time a boy is 14, not being able to do a pullup puts him in the bottom 10% of his age group. That makes it an easier task as time goes on. I would expect that all but the truly obese lads to be able to make a pullup with just a bit of dedicated effort as a teen. So generally speakin', I'd encourage your boy to work on it consistently, following one of the programs that's out there. He could get some buddies and challenge each other to do the 100 pushups/20 pullups / 200 situps / 5K run challenge or somesuch. There are lower-grade "pullups" that can be useful for training or alternate requirements for the lads who are really strugglin' with their weight and need a "victory." Sometimes I encourage Scoutmaster's to use the "flexed arm hang" time, which is the alternative offered by the President's Fitness Challenge. Alternately, yeh can try a bar set about 3 feet above the floor and do a pullup sort of like an upside down pushup. With his legs on the floor his weight is partially supported. Some gyms also have these things where you can set weights to do an assisted pullup; in that case maybe he'd have to go from 5 to 6 pullups assisted by a certain amount of counterweight. You might use these as a way of helpin' your son train, or yeh might suggest them to your son's SM as alternatives for the lads who are obese. So again, I wouldn't make a big deal of this if your son isn't. Advancement is just a small part of a healthy scouting experience. If your son is focused on it, I'd help him with some appropriate fitness activities and training. The success and pride you both will feel from that will be so much more positive than if he gets a "bye" because his SM softens his definition of "improvement." But if your troop is dealin' with a lot of overweight boys, yeh might offer some of the alternatives to the SM as a suggestion, or perhaps encourage some more coaching or fitness-directed activities to help the kids improve. Best, Beavah

Ha, now I'm confused (but I admit I got sorta lost around the cockroach discussion). Yah, I think we all got lost at da point when packsaddle got a real bug in his system. JMBadger, yeh got me right. if they've got Tenderfoot, they shouldn't need reminders. If they don't, then it should be da Patrol Leader or Troop Guide that do the reminding. Never do a task for boys that they can do themselves. BG

Nice, Missouri! Yah, I think that maintainin' good contacts with a CO is a hard thing, eh? Scouters are busy running program, CO leaders are busy doin' their thing. It's really easy to drift apart. But it's well worth it on da scouting side to do a bit to stay in touch. Good luck buildin' on this for the future! B

The city probably has meeting and storage space that could be used, so da cost is minimal. Beyond that, we critters off in internet land can't give yeh legal advice, eh? And nothing that I or anyone tells yeh should be considered any form of legal advice or opinion, just our random speculation. Depending on your local community and state statutes, the city might have a lawsuit risk. Yeh do, after all, live in da State of the Fruits and Nuts, eh? . Most good attorneys would advise the city that the risk is real and advise against it. But attorney advice is just advice, eh? How great that risk is just depends on your community, eh? The city council and officials know their community and are tasked with representing it, and sometimes representing your community means taking reasonable risks on their behalf. How they manage that risk is also up to da city. Yeh can just do it and then spin the unit off to someone else if a suit materializes from someone who has cognizable standing. Yeh can take a good look at other programs da city sponsors and set things up so that yeh have a good case for public benefit, along a church-state partnership model and/or equal treatment model. Yeh can try to line up a special interest firm to be a white knight to help yeh fight any suit that comes up. I would think it'd be best to think about it a bit. An alternative to the city is to have da local chamber of commerce or community foundation sponsor a unit, and then just promote 'em through city channels or as individual councilmen or city workers. Another alternative is to sponsor an Explorer Post instead of a traditional unit. Another option is to start some other type of outdoors club through your parks department, either on your own or in partnership with someone like Campfire USA. Lots of ways to skin a fish. Beavah Beavah

Child molestation isn't about sexual orientation. It's about power. Yah, yeh keep sayin' that. But then if yeh go and listen to the interviews with the molesters, they talk in detail about the type of youth they are sexually attracted to, their affection for 'em, the grooming behaviors, etc. That sure sounds like orientation to me. And there have been historical cultures that permitted that sort of "loving" mentoring relationship. There's plenty of homosexual adult sex that's about power. Hetero, too, especially in some male-dominant cultures. "Power" in relationships doesn't change orientation, it just affects how it's expressed. I'm thinkin' things are a bit more complex than what you're layin' out. Sexual orientation is defined by your consensual relationships with ADULTS - not by a criminal act. So the law now determines sexual orientation? If we change da criminal statutes, does that magically change the person's orientation? If an 18 year old is sexually attracted to a 15 year old cheerleader, that makes him not heterosexual because of the statute? Funny that. I think yeh can make a fine case that da increased risk of molestation from having a gay Scoutmaster is negligible. But the dancin' with the definitions bit is a bit silly, IMHO. B

Nah, yeh missed da point, Horizon. What happens in the U.S. doesn't matter. We're a minority culture in da rest of the world, eh? Especially on this issue. And we're goin' into a demographic decline similar to Japan's, except we're enterin' it with much less in savings and much more in entitlements. So both demographically and economically, we're not goin' to be the deciding force on this issue. Much like da Anglican community's struggle with it, eh? It's da Africans who are close to callin' the tune. B

Yah, JMBadger, moose's comment about antennae was a reference to packsaddle's comment about cockroaches. Apparently packsaddle needs an exterminator. And we all know packsaddle is a bit odd. One wonders what he's goin' to do with those island-sized bugs when he moves. So yah, take is as the joke it was intended to be. I think, like jet, that you're still missing the point of the Scouting program. It's not to put checks in a book, eh? It's to develop character. The point of Family Life MB is to help young men grow into a lived recognition of their role in supporting the family. Everybody has their own style of parenting, of course. Mine was to expect 11 year olds to do their share without reminders or nagging. In scouts or in parenting, yeh get what you expect. Your posts are a great contribution to da thread on Badge Mills, I'll admit. To my mind, they epitomize the way a Badge Mill works, eh? It reads da requirements in such a narrow way as to make 'em not reflect real learning or development by the youth. Just do da task once, in da easiest way yeh can make the language work. And then as an adult, yeh do all the support work and take all da responsibility away from the kids. Why in the world would yeh remind the boys to bring compasses? If they really passed da Tenderfoot "What to bring on a campout" requirement, they should know to bring a compass. That's what passing the requirement means. If they don't bring a compass, that's their problem. They can navigate without it... unless yeh did da First Class requirement for 'em too. Why in the world would yeh remind 'em to bring a first aid kit? They put their first aid kits together for Second Class, eh? They know how to do it now. If they don't have a first aid kit, they know how to improvise first aid with what they've got. Right? Unless yeh decided that actually knowin' how to do first aid while camping was adding to the requirements. Besides, it's their Patrol Leader who should be doin' the reminding if any is to be done. Feedback is a gift, eh? We don't mean to be harsh, we mean to be helpful. Yeh should know that what you are describing is what most of us would consider subtracting from the requirements, and not allowed. An "Eagle Mill" approach. Da BSA police are not going to come "bust" you, the lads will still earn Eagle just as fast as yeh can push 'em and carry 'em through it. But your son and da other boys really won't get much out of da program besides the cloth patches. Personally, I think that's a shame. Yeh would be amazed what a great experience Scouting can be when it's done a bit more traditionally. Kudu's question is a good one here. Would you trust your scouts to camp on their own, at least a quarter mile away from da adults? Would you trust your son to do an extended home stay with an international scouting family without you, demonstratin' that he's a fine American scout who does his chores for his hosts reliably? If not, then maybe yeh should think about what your program could do differently so that the patrol really can hike and camp on its own, and your son really could be a good member of a host family with high expectations. Have fun on your campout this weekend. Autumn is such a great time to be in the woods with the boys. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sure, NJCubScouter. If you're in to callin' people names, yeh can call me any name yeh wish. I don't mind. Those things with a "T" have a thick skin, eh? While I was continuin' a conversation that I don't find particularly interestin' (because I'm more interested in Scouting), my response was a genuine contribution to da conversation. Unlike this post and da previous one. B

But as I said, I was responding to the simple and incorrect statement that it's not a right. If yeh really did understand da context and text of the full ruling, you'd recognize that there is nothing at all "simple" about it. After all, the text about being fundamental to our survival is a reference to procreation, eh? With respect to gay marriage whether or not it is a "right" is debatable, not decided. Usin' language like "incorrect statement" in this context is just incorrect. BlancMange, I get where you're comin' from, eh? That's a policy and fairness argument, though, not a "rights" argument. As such it's just fine. But if "marriage" is a "fundamental right", explain to me again why any particular type of marriage should be preferred? That's not the way we usually think of "rights", is it? When we have free speech rights, we don't usually say "except for speeches about polygamy". If we have a right to marriage as we choose, then that does not readily allow for exceptions. That's da "logical nexus." Whether it's "illegal" is also irrelevant. Da point of a "right" is that it trumps laws and renders them invalid. Homosexual relations were in fact "illegal" along with polygamy and bestiality until recently in many states. Until the "right" of privacy made enforcement impossible. That's why da talk of rights and the court fights are inappropriate. Yeh don't go for a constitutional amendment (or a constitutional amendment by judicial activism), because that has da risk of unintended consequences, both to the law and to da social contract behind constitutional democracy. Look at the decades of polarization and anger Roe v. Wade has caused the nation, or da blight that's still left from the fallout of Swann. What yeh want here is to lobby to change the law. To convince other people of the fairness and reasonableness of that, eh? That's da proper way to change the marriage statutes, to convince your fellow citizens. There are no short-cuts. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

As people get older, they tend to get more conservative. Except about Medicare and Social Security, eh? Da trends yeh report are interestin', but in the long run they don't matter Horizon. With our newfangled sexual mores, da West is showing drastically declining birth rates compared to the rest of the world, eh? Whatever view we hold on these matters isn't goin' to be more than a historical blip. The traditional family folks are goin' to out-procreate us. And with the limited resources of the world, eventually da competition is goin' to overrun us one way or another. It was da immigrant communities in California that made the difference in Prop 8, eh? What's the bumper sticker... "I'm Pro-Life, and both I and my children vote." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Ah, we've hit da straw men and ad hominems. What is da Latin word for straw, anyways? Nah, Gern, what I said was that government recognized marriage is a public policy, not a privilege or a right. Like a farm subsidy, or a business incentive, it conveys certain tax advantages and other incentives on somethin' the government wants to encourage. Yeh might say that's long term, stable families where kids are likely to be born and raised or somethin' else. Yeh might not understand it. I sure didn't understand the mohair subsidy. Yeh can argue whether farm subsidies are worth doing at all (or whether the government should recognize marriage at all). Yeh can argue that farm subsidies should be extended to automobile manufacturers (or whether the government should recognize same-sex, polygamous, different-species or other "marriages"). Those are policy arguments. They don't change the "rights" side, eh? Anybody is free to find a priest, minister, rabbi, imam, or sea captain to declare them "married" without regard for da government. Yeh should know, NJScouter, that yeh always read SCOTUS rulings in full and in context. Particularly da flowery language of da Warren court, eh? The context was inter-racial marriages with respect to da 14th Amendment, and da question wasn't government recognition/subsidy, it was felony imprisonment with regard to due process. I don't think da Warren court was ready to extend its elastic Constitution even so far as subsidizing polygamous marriage, do you? Despite its flowery language about marriage "rights". Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The thing is, that many people think that for some reason, being gay=being a pedophile. The evidence is in the opening post of this thread with the quotation marks around the word different. Yah, Vigil, whether or not we agree with 'em I think that there are probably a lot of people and parents in da Scouting community who feel that being gay = an increased risk of being the type of ephebophile who likes Boy Scout aged boys. Yeh might say they're wrong or they're overestimatin' the risk or that there's diminished risk if da person is "out". But perhaps there's no need to misrepresent da view as being broader than it is just to ridicule it. Da quotes around "different", however do not mean what yeh claim. They mean that some people believe that pedophiles and ephebophiles are a fundamentally "different" sexual orientation. Heterosexual pedophilia or ephebophilia is not a heterosexual orientation under that view. There might be some merit to that, even, when it comes to pedophilia. Leastways, DanKroh makes that argument from da research literature. I personally think da case is weaker for teens. An older fellow who finds his teen son's girlfriend attractive I think is still hetero, eh? Maybe a bit immature or insecure, but still hetero. That doesn't mean that he's at all likely to molest or seduce his son's girlfriend, eh? But the attraction is there. Does it mean he's at slightly increased risk? Da GSUSA think so . One can imagine with access and opportunity and a certain lack of moral fiber and some alcohol... certainly such things have happened. Is it worth worryin' about? Nah. There's an increased risk of death when driving at night or in the rain, but it's small enough and the benefits are high enough that almost all of us drive at night or in the rain. Same is true here. But do we ridicule someone who avoids driving at night? Or do we misrepresent 'em as believing that all night driving will lead to accidents? Probably shouldn't do that either. Beavah Just throwin' some more logs on da fire, packsaddle. It's gettin' cold up in these parts.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Ugh, we might have to add EDGE (da real version, not Kudu's ). Or can I put in a vote that we add CRAPPPO?! Beavah

Yah, what sherm said! Though I'd move it to Star and Life and Eagle, rather than put it at Tenderfoot. FRACK, I'm likin' the EDGIER acronyms though!

I'm pretty sure Dale allows a private organization to set its membership rules. Period. No compelling reason to justify those rules. It has the rights to set them. Beavah can probably elaborate. Nah, not quite that broad, eh? The Dale argument was framed in terms of expressive association. The BSA is allowed to choose leaders in a way that aligns with their stated goals of teachin' character and values as the BSA defines values. So if BSA defines "Clean" and "Morally Straight" to include sexually straight, then they have a right to set leadership standards that reflect that, because teaching character and values is the primary purpose for which they are associated. In the same way, a Presbyterian Church might exclude a Mormon as youth leader (or vice versa), because the purpose of the people of the church associating is to advocate for the Presbyterian view of Christianity. Da KKK can set racially based membership rules for the same reason, eh? Their expressive purpose, da reason for their association, is to advocate a certain view of race relations. Admitting members of all races would undermine their freedom to advocate for their views. But the Chamber of Commerce, another private membership organization, cannot set race-based membership rules if they are subject to a public access act. Da expressive purpose of the Chamber of Commerce is to promote the development of business, not comment on race relations. Da government does have a compelling interest, because excluding people of one race affects their access to tangible economic goods and benefits, and the government's public access act does not infringe on the private organization's purpose for associating. I find it interesting that the BSA makes it much easier to segregate than to include. Don't get where you're comin' from, sherm. In this case the BSA isn't doin' anything, the CO is. Da BSA could choose to segregate, and grant charters only to those who agree with someone's view of proper openness to diversity. That would exclude those like da Mormons and the Catholics and this Presbyterian Church and that Hungarian immigrant troop. Put up a big shingle on Council offices "No Mormon organizations need apply." We choose not to, and instead welcome lots of diverse organizations and views into da organization. I think that's a good thing. It respects people's differences, while also providin' a common community of Scoutin' that transcends the differences. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Glad yeh found what you're looking for to get started, sash. Feel free to come back and post specific questions like "we're not sure how to support a new boy who has Aspergers" or "has anyone dealt with a wheelchair bound CP scout?" Yeh can also try searching on da specific disability. I'm sure we've had threads on autism and other disabilities. Beavah

Yah, packsaddle, I really had hopes there for a bit that da thread would just die Lots of homosexuals claim to be straight in public, Sherm. A few even get married. That doesn't mean they are accurately representing their orientation in public. If your definition of homosexual orientation is "what the fellow claimed on da news cameras", then I'm not sure that counts as "fact.". Especially when you're talking decades ago before G2SS came out. B

Marriage as a personal/religious commitment is function of free will, eh? Yeh might consider that a God given right I suppose. Government recognition of marriage is an act of civil policy. Like a farm subsidy or social security. Much as we want to claim such things as "rights" it's really a choice by the government to give preferential treatment or support in order to achieve a policy aim of da plurality of voters (or the most effective of lobbyists). Yeh could cut farm subsidies or abolish social security or remove da government from the business of recognizing marriages. There would be much wailing and perhaps a voter backlash, but it's not a right. Folks in PA would then have to make explicit shared property partnership agreement contracts and pay a bit more in taxes is all. Pre-ups and no fault divorces pretty much make civil marriage almost less binding than a typical contract anyways. Probably da only minor effect you'd see nationwide is a growth in polygamy and da oppression of women in that kind of relationship. Beavah

Yah, can we move this thread over to da Issues & Politics forum? How 'bout it, moderators? Much as I'll occasionally dabble over in I&P, leavin' this here will only detract from the real Scouting-related discussions. Beavah

Yah, Gern, if you're only talkin' about the BSA voluntarily switchin' to local option, that's a horse of a different color. Hard to predict, eh? My guess, though, is that it would be more like da Episcopal Church ordaining gay bishops than anything else. It'd polarize the community and tear it apart, but slowly. You'd get a lot of parents who would pull their kids, a lot of CO's who would drop their charters, and a lot of donors who would pull their support. Just from da confusion as much as anything. Call it about 8-10 times the backlash of the Dale ruling. Maybe more, as the Dale ruling really didn't create much of a stir in most communities. Could be much, much worse, of course, particularly if a few major CO's left wholesale, but presumably somebody would get at least their national organizations on board before such a move. Initially yeh would get a few new kids and CO's from da other side of things, but that would taper off pretty fast. It's not really like yeh see a huge market just waitin' in da wings for a change in organizational policy. Medium term, if local option caught on, you'd see what yeh see in the Episcopal community. Individual churches and units declaring themselves for one side or the other, a major push to find a new alternative to da BSA that would attract the allegiance of the "conservative" charters, maybe pressure to repeal the congressional monopoly the BSA has on Scouting. We'd see separate camporees and proposals for separate weeks at summer camp. Long term, dependin' on how it was handled, da hullaballoo would slowly die down and we'd end up with a smaller and less socially significant BSA and one or more equally small alternative scouting associations. Having hastened their mutual demise, together da various scouting programs will bemoan their loss of members and concoct new and improved "marketing plans" as they fade into da dustbin of history. Eventually a few historians or historical sociologists at 2nd and 3rd tier universities will write dissertations on the whole thing, which will get them their degrees and sit like most dissertations on a dusty library shelf or hard drive. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Should minority rights be put up to popular vote? They have been historically in da U.S. Usually a profound supermajority is required to establish such a (constitutional) right. Or to rescind it once it has been established. What's your alternative? I suppose yeh can do what the Founding Fathers did and make an appeal to Divinity, and claim that some rights are endowed by the Creator. Problem is that Divinity is notoriously fickle about declarin' His support for some human governance notion. Beavah

The alternatives to majority rule are like one wolf with 20 sheep locked in a pen. Periodically da wolf kills a few even if he's not hungry, just to prove he's da wolf. Beavah

Yah, but it's a false dichotomy, acco40. Same as da "right" vs. "wrong" bit. Yeh can have all kinds of folks not registered as MCs who aren't "warm bodies", from CORs and IHs to former Scoutmasters to da SM at the neighboring campsite who agrees to join to make 3 so the lad can finish his rank at camp. Heck, most scouting parents have a decent understanding of da program after a year. Some units sign up all parents as MCs when they first join, eh? I don't see that as being any less "warm body" than a parent who has been with the program for 5 years but isn't registered. Honestly, da trick to good BORs is having folks learn from other BOR members and then seeing how well they actually listen to kids. Lots of trained, registered MCs are pretty darn lousy when it comes to encouraging and really listening to kids. Beavah