Rick_in_CA

dkurtenback wrote: “But this is not a math problem, it is a people problem; and the solution would benefit from considering all of the values that are alike as well as those that are different.†But isn’t that the whole point of local control? Everyone gets to apply their values to their unit? This is the problem I keep running up against - there is a group of conservatives (obviously not all conservatives) that are defining “respecting my values†as unit A being able to force their values on unit B over there even though they agree with them. That is NOT respecting the values of unit B. Is that the conservative definition of “Respect� I get my way, and you don’t? I hope not.

dkurtenback wrote: “There is a big difference between (a) living in the world that you have to live in and you don't have any choice about who else is there, and (b) voluntarily joining and participating in an organization because you want to associate with certain kinds of people. A lot of the wistful comments from progressives express a desire to have the conservatives be exposed to people they don't want to be exposed to, because it will be good for them -- they will learn that their conservative views are, well, wrong. And that is the sort of thing that gets the conservatives upset. And the progressives can't understand why.†Not that their conservative views are wrong, but that just because people disagree with them, that they aren’t worth associating with. Unless the conservative view you are talking about is the view “progressives are morally bankrupt people and have no ethicsâ€Â, then yes - you are wrong! What it sounds like you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) is: conservatives really only want to hang out with fellow conservatives, and they want all the non-conservatives too leave scouting and leave them alone? And you wonder why progressive feel upset about that? I love scouting. It was a huge positive influence in my youth, and still is today. That is why I care so much, and am fighting for BSA national to make it’s policies match what I believe scouting values to be (you can’t be non-sectarian and then tell half the faiths “ignore your tenets, use theirs insteadâ€Â).

This weekend another scouter asked me “why do you want the conservatives to leave scouting?â€Â. I answered that I don’t, I just want them to give others the same respect they wish to receive. Why does it have to be about the other side leaving? I really feel strongly about this. Ever since I was a youth in scouting, I believed one of the great things about it was that people of every faith and stripe could sit down together as welcome members of the same scouting family. I want my scouts to be able to see people of other faiths and beliefs as good and reasonable people who happen to have different beliefs, not as bad people who are wrong. And one of the best ways to accomplish that, I believe, is to have them encounter such people in positive settings. I don’t know, maybe go to camp with them? It’s much harder to think of a group of people as simple caricatures if you know some of them personally and realize that they are not idiots, or morally bankrupt, or out to destroy X, but decent people with some different opinions or beliefs. I want my scouts to be able to say or think the next time they hear something of the form: “You know all those X people think that ...â€Â, they can reply “Actually, that’s not true. I went to camp with an X, and he was a decent kid and didn’t say anything like that.†That is part of growing up to be a decent citizen and human being. That is why I want my scouts to get an opportunity to meet and interact with people of a wide range of faiths, political views, nationalities, personality types, physical and mental abilities, etc. - and to learn to see them as human beings, not cartoon characters. To learn that what make someone a decent, or not decent person has very little to do with which faith, or nationality, etc. they are. In my life I have been privileged to get to know and be friends with people that are deeply conservative, strongly liberal, straight, gay, Catholic, Jewish, Unitarian, Protestant, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic and Wiccan. And to know them as good and decent people. Some are very thoughtful, some are a bit flighty, some are gentle some are rambunctious. But they are all people that it is an honor for me to be able to call them friend. Yes, some of are discussions can be filled with strong opinions and sometimes generate some heat. But we usually end with a smile and sometimes a hug, but always as friends. Yet I do know people that say things like: “all republicans are jack booted thugsâ€Â, or “all democrats are socialists that hate America†or use phrases like: “liberal scum†or “#@#& conservativesâ€Â; and I say: “have you actually got to know any?†So when I hear scouters say things like: “I don’t want my scouts associating with Xâ€Â, “X won’t be happy until they destroy scoutingâ€Â, or “why don’t they just leave and form their own group?â€Â, it make me sad. Because if they get their way, scouting will be a poorer place, and the youth will loose one of the great parts of scouting.

dkurtenbach wrote: “I suppose that there might still be some Christians in this day and age who would consider that denying the divinity of Christ is evil, but personally I've never come across one that I know about.†Unfortunately, I have. Years ago, an otherwise seemingly nice man was being unpleasant to a few members of our group (a Sikh man and his son). And when confronted, he said it was his Christian duty to confront their sin of denying the divinity of Christ - apparently by being rude to them. We asked him to leave. I just don’t understand some people.

dkurtenbach wrote: “I think that the concern is this: By continuing to belong to and participate in an organization that welcomes homosexual leaders (even though they are not allowed in their own units), they would be cooperating in an ongoing moral evil. In other words, guilt by association.†But don’t many Christians believe that denying the divinity of Christ is evil? So wouldn’t cooperating with non-Christians be “guilt by association� What is so special about the gay thing?

Why would an atheist be a member of a religion? Because atheist doesn't mean: "doesn't believe in religion" (though I am sure there are plenty of atheists that don't), but "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of deities." There are plenty of religions that can fit that description. Of course, now you have to define what the word "Deity" or "Deities" refer too.

AZMike asks: "Rick, so you have made the decision to pull your kids out of Scouting if you don't get the Local Option?" I am beginning to lean that way. I haven't decided yet, it depends on how it plays out. Basically, the BSA needs to decide, are they a conservative Christian organization, or do they believe their own bylaws and are "totally non-sectarian"? Are they going to continue to heap disrespect on Unitarians and other more welcoming faiths (I am Unitarian if you want to know)? A no on the local option is sending the message to non-conservatives that they are not welcome in scouting. What I do NOT understand, is how so many conservatives appear to believe that a yes on the local option means that they are no-longer welcome. Their COs will still be able to follow their own beliefs in their selecting leaders and members, how is allowing others to do the same an attack? AZMike, I noticed you haven't given an opinion on how the current membership standard matches with being "totally non-sectarian". Do you think the BSA should try and live up to that part of it's bylaws? Do you think that is part of scouting values?

Sad news. I never met him in person, but it was always a pleasure to read his contributions to this forum. He will be missed. My deepest sympathies to his friends and family.

"Czechoslovakian Option"? Really? I would walk if they were morally cowards enough to do that. For me it's basically the local option or nothing at this point. If they don't go with the local option, they are saying that they don't believe in their own by-laws ("totally non-sectarian" is incompatible with the current policy) and are caving in to bigotry. They will be saying that unless you are a conservative Christian, you are not welcome. That will be a sad day. AZMike, since you obviously don't agree with the BSA bylaws and the fact that the B "totally non-sectarian", what are you doing here?

My layman's understanding of CA law (I am NOT a lawyer, this is not legal advice) of code 626.10 is that an adult is OK with a pocket knife on school grounds (the law applies to public or private schools) as long as the blade isn't over 2.5 inches, and does NOT LOCK. A locking blade of any length is not allowed. There is an exception for "instructive purposes" or for employees (such as kitchen staff). My point is CHECK your local laws so you don't get into trouble. There are some surprises out there! You don't want to be teaching a knife class to a bunch of cubs with plastic knives and soap bars in your CO's private school and suddenly learn that you are breaking the law.

I have the last 24 hours link bookmarked in my browser, but to get a useful display, I have to click the more button on the bottom. Can we make that the default display? As for many of the problems people are seeing with the display of threads, one of the causes is that the software uses javascript to deliver the content. For a thread with 60 posts, it downloads all of them at once, and then uses javascript to populate the page numbers and order the posts. The supposed advantage to this, is it offloads some of the processing from the server to the browser. The disadvantage of this, is that it will never work correctly for some of you. It is dependent on you having the correct browser, and the correct versions of those browsers. So you either upgrade your older browser, switch browsers (if you can) or live with it. It's one of the reasons in the company I used to work for, one of the requirements of all web software was it had to be functional with javascript (and images) turned off (unless the some aspect of the application required them - then it should gracefully explain to the user). That way it would (theoretically at least) work even from an old cell phone browser.

Nice photos. Thank you for sharing them!

OK, Let me try this again. It looks like the software change eat my reply. Beavah wrote: Yah, but Rick_in_CA, yeh do realize that da BSA you grew up with that taught you those values had exactly the same policy in place then as now, right? No it didn’t. When I was a boy scout, I remember an openly atheist scout master in a friends troop. He didn’t push it, but if asked he wouldn’t hide it. He was active in the district, no one cared about his religion. Are you saying that the BSA has been booting out gays, atheist and agnostics for the last 100 years? Beavah wrote: Even as they objected to that lifestyle and kept Scoutin' clean and wholesome for you and your friends, they also lived and taught respect for others. They objected? Really? Can you point to anything written in an official BSA publication from before the religious-right hijack that even mentions homosexuality? How about an official public statement? A directive sent to the councils from national? Anything other than a secret memo in a drawer? Beavah wrote: Bein' a conservative Christian and bein' committed to tolerance, honesty, and respect for others aren't incompatible, eh? In fact, they go together quite well. Provided yeh remember those lessons about respect and tolerance apply to everybody, not just da folks who agree with you. I agree with you about this, and I believe this is where the problem is. There are some conservative Christians that define respect and tolerance as “agree with me or get outâ€. Before the hijack, the BSA that I grew up with wasn’t a conservative Christian organization. Sure it promoted the values of patriotism, honesty, helping others, etc. But you didn’t (and still don’t) have to be a conservative to be patriotic, honest, helpful, etc. (no matter how much some conservatives try to claim otherwise - love of family and country aren’t uniquely conservative values). But after the hijack, we get national trying to enforce a religious-right agenda on everyone in the BSA. Just look at their treatment of the Unitarians and their religious emblem program. That was NOT an example of tolerance, honesty or respect. When I was a youth, the BSA was open to all kinds on the social spectrum: conservative, moderate, liberal, etc. The largest single group of charter organizations were public schools (how many units did we loose after the religious-right hijacked scouting?). Today, you can still find people of all kinds across the social spectrum in scouting. But for the last decade or more, if you weren’t a social conservative, national treated us like second class members. Our COs were told “we don’t care what your moral beliefs are, you have to discriminate as we tell you - or we will do it for youâ€. After decades of no problems, suddenly the UUA were told “we find your central religious beliefs to be incompatible with Boy Scout values, so your religious emblems are unfit to be worn on our uniforms†(because they started defining “boy scout values†as conservative Christian ones). It’s time we took the BSA back, and return to the real values of tolerance, honesty and respect.

Ugh!!! Bring back the old software! This is terrible! The old software worked without javascript turned on, this one doesn’t (and for what? This isn’t YouTube). To get the latest activity, in the old site I could just bookmark the “last 24 hours†page, here you have to do an extra click. Plus it gives you only the last three entries, and you have to click "Show More" at the bottom. Then instead of a nice compact view that fit on my laptop screen, I have to scroll down to see more than a couple of entries. And it flat out doesn’t work anymore on my iPad. Definitely an example of “slick and pretty†over usability! Save us Terry! Your forum has been one of the most useful sources of information and advice on Scouting that I have ever found. This new software will make it much less so.

I reckon it feels like betrayal, eh? A stranger who doesn't care for yeh is one thing, but a friend or loved one who stops bein' a friend really hurts. Let me tell you what felt like a betrayal, it was when the BSA was hijacked by the religious-right. When Unitarian scouts were basically told "we don't like your religion, and believe it's central tenets of faith are incompatible with BSA values", that was a betrayal. When the Boy Scouts basically stopped believing in their own policy: "The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life"; and effectively replaced it with: "The BSA is a conservative Christian organization that allows others to participate as long as they follow conservative Christian values"; that was a betrayal. I feel like this policy change is just a first step in undoing a betrayal of the real BSA values I grew up with as a cub scout, boy scout and explorer scout. The values of tolerance, honesty and respect for others.

There is no need to change the BSA? It appears the BSA disagrees with you. However, you are free to go form your own organization that matches your values.

Duplicate post(This message has been edited by Rick_in_CA)

The question weighing on my mind is whether it will be enough to allow schools to start charting again, or whether they'll also have to change their stand on atheism. That's another topic, though. For public schools? No, it isn't.

Actually, you CAN buy a fighter jet or tank here in the US. They are just large and expensive. Buying one with working weapons is a lot harder (lots of permits, but in theory it can be done). Actually a friend of mine used to collect WW2 vehicles, he owned several tanks (and he had a friend that legally owned a WW2 Sherman with working guns). There are several fighter jets in private hands in the U.S.. Paul Allen (of Microsoft fame) owns a MIG-29 (just type "mig-29 Paul Allen" into Google). The reason you don't see drug cartels fielding tanks and fighter planes, is that they are VERY conspicuous (especially if you try to use them), and simply not worth the expense (for them at least). Though I do remember reading an article about some drug cartel using an old B-17 bomber complete with original machine guns to transport cocaine within Columbia. Don't know if it was real or not. I'm sure if someone steals Paul Allen's MIG and kamikazes the local post office with it, we will have a national hand-wringing and lots of "why on earth do people need fighter jets?" and "anyone that feels a need to have a MIG-29 is mentally unbalanced". Of course if someone does the same thing with a stolen Lear jet, that would be different. They don't look anywhere as scary as a MIG-29!

I have to disagree with the basic premiss that society is much more violent today than when we were children. Violent crime is actually been going down. Here are the FBI statistics for homicide: U.S. Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 19502007 Year Homicide rate 1950 4.6 1951 4.4 1952 4.6 1953 4.5 1954 4.2 1955 4.1 1956 4.1 1957 4.0 1958 4.8 1959 4.9 1960 5.1 1961 4.8 1962 4.6 1963 4.6 1964 4.9 1965 5.1 1966 5.6 1967 6.2 1968 6.9 1969 7.3 1970 7.9 1971 8.6 1972 9.0 1973 9.4 1974 9.8 1975 9.6 1976 8.8 1977 8.8 1978 9.0 1979 9.7 1980 10.2 1981 9.8 1982 9.1 1983 8.3 1984 7.9 1985 7.9 1986 8.6 1987 8.3 1988 8.4 1989 8.7 1990 9.4 1991 9.8 1992 9.3 1993 9.5 1994 9.0 1995 8.2 1996 7.4 1997 6.8 1998 6.3 1999 5.7 2000 5.5 2001 5.6 2002 5.6 2003 5.7 2004 5.5 2005 5.9 2006 6.1 2007 5.9 Source: Crime in the United States, 2008, FBI, Uniform Crime Reports. As you can see, there is a steady increase in the rate till a peak in 1980. Then it drops and goes back up to a second peak in 1991. Its been dropping ever since. Its not in this table, but the 2011 rate was down to 4.7 homicides per 100,000 (I dont know if the 2012 rate is available yet). So why the peaks? What was happening around those dates? Leaded gas went away in 1976. Lead has a known impact on neurological development in children, and can reduce impulse control in those with increased lead levels. There is a pretty strong correlation between the amount of lead in the environment and delinquency rates. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) legalized contraception nation wide for both married and unmarried individuals. Roe vs Wade (1973) legalized abortion. These Supreme Court cases reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies, which according to some studies reduced crime rates. The crack cocaine epidemic. Crack started showing up in 1984-85, which contributes to the second spike in 1991. Other factors include fewer people in the prime crime ages (16-27?), better medical care (more people survive getting shot and stabbed than they used to) and others known and unknown. The statistics on violent crime in general show similar peaks and falls. Basically, we are safer today than twenty years ago, and getting safer.

CalicoPenn: "As for Concealed Carry? It's cowardly. At one time in this country, guns were carried openly. If you carried a hidden gun, you were a sneak, a cheat, a thief, in general, you were a dishonorable man. If the NRA were truly honorable, they would be lobbying for open carry, not for concealed carry. Why hide your gun unless you're ashamed to be seen with it?" jblake47: "Nothing illegal about any of this in the state I reside." Unfortunately, that isn't the case in every state. Here in California, open carry (though legal) will get you harassed and maybe even arrested by the police in most cities. A case in point. A friend of mine works for an armored car company. He is licensed and bonded to carry a firearm for work, and does. His company has a policy that employees store their guns at home. He rides a motorcycle to and from work (he doesnt own a car). He doesnt have a concealed carry license, and its basically impossible to get one in the county he lives and works. So the only legal way for him to transport his pistol between home and work is openly in a holster on his hip. After the eighth time (he kept written records of each incident) he was pulled over by police at gun point (you want to talk about scary - try multiple people pointing guns at you and all yelling something like: Hands! Hands! and Get down on the ground! - now try that eight times in three months), he was instructed (in writing no less) by the county sheriff to illegally hide the gun in the cargo compartment of his motorcycle. And yes, was told a conceal carry license was out of the question, we dont do those here. So now he carries a laminated copy of the letter with him, and illegally hides his gun. No more stops. The only reason he didnt end up in jail was that he always wore his uniform under his motorcycle suit, and carried his papers. The police told him that usually that would just arrest someone for brandishing if they openly carry a gun. Something is very broken if the county sheriff has to instruct you to break the law. Its nonsense like this that generates distrust of the anti-gun side in gun debates (and stupid comments by the NRA and other spokespeople that generated distrust of the pro-gun side). Arent some municipalities considering laws that require concealed carry (not that everyone must carry a gun, but that if you do you have to conceal it)?

Dan, I like your idea of renting a U-Haul trailer for those few times you need one. How much does U-Haul charge for a weekend rental? I took a quick look on line, and it would only tell me the cost for a 6 hour rental.

As with many things in life, how people respond to a given set of circumstances often depends on the individual. While one kid might see a prank as harmless fun, another kid might see the identical prank as being picked on. That doesnt necessarily make one kid right and the other wrong, nor does it mean that the kid feeling picked on is thin-skinned and just needs to man up. I agree with Beavah when he says that there are ways of doing pranks right, and ways of doing pranks wrong. OGEs experience is clearly and example of doing it wrong. The problem is that the line between doing it right and doing it wrong is often very thin. There are so many ways to have fun in scouting, why insist on doing problematic things? Take for example singing for a lost item. This is something I will never tolerate in any unit I am a part of. Its a end this or I walk item for me for several reasons: its un-scoutlike, it teaches poor lessons, and it often (unintentionally) becomes officially sanctioned bullying. Unscoutlike? Is it Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, or Kind? I believe no, no, no and no. What does it teach? Put it in a different context. A scout is walking down the street and sees a man in front of him accidentally drop his wallet. The scout picks it up, what is he supposed to do? 1) Excuse me Sir? You dropped your wallet! or 2) Hey Mister! I have your wallet, sing a song and Ill give it back to you. Bullying. This is from a discussion with a pair of scouters that did this in their troop. Basically they discovered that if a scout sees his buddy drop something, or finds a lost item, he quietly gives it back to his buddy. If he sees an unpopular scout loose something, it gets handed in to the leaders and the unpopular scout has to sing for it. In addition, it was discovered the some scouts were helping the unpopular scouts loose items so they would have to sing. It became one more tool that the bullies used on the weaker scouts, and with what looked like official sanction to the victims. For these reasons they ended the practice in their troop. It didnt help that they had a SM that was a big fan, and dismissed any complaints by the scouts as whining. There isnt any reason to humiliate a scout, or to make them the butt of a joke in order for the others to have fun. If its at someone else's expense? Find something else to do.(This message has been edited by Rick_in_CA)

Scoutfish said: No, not even suggesting camps have .22 rifles, but they could use better bb guns. I'm curious, why? I remember shooting a .22 at camp when I was a cub scout, and in Indian Guides (a YMCA organization). Have there been problems with cub scouts that caused the switch to bb guns? Or is it more of an issue of the places that the bb gun ranges are located? Not trying to start a fight, just wanting to understand.

First an interesting aside about water balloons. When I was in college, a group of students built a very large water balloon catapult (basically a three story tall funnelator - spread between two buildings). They launched a big water balloon from it. It flew some 600 yards (they were up on a hill) and hit a parked bicycle broad side. It bent and broke the frame, totaled the ten speed (I saw the photos, it looked like it had been hit by a truck). That put an end to their water balloon launching. The incident actually gave one of the students involved nightmares for a week. She told me she would have dreams of the balloon hitting and killing someone. Its amazing what five pounds of water at high speed can do. As for the water pistols, I agree that the ban is all about the not pretending to harm another person stuff. Thats why its OK to use a laser tag gun, just dont point it at real person, or a representation of a person (no person shaped targets).