skeptic

"V". The problem with your comment, from my perspective, is that you have completely ignored the intent. In other words, the basic concept of the Oath and Law, with no one pushing their "agendas". The real shame is that this is still the main thrust of almost any unit, to try to instill these basic concepts, while having fun. All these other distractions are not the focus for most of us, only annoyance in that they take so much away from the best we have to offer. Please consider keeping these kind of comments on the Politics forum. Thank you.

HiLo; Right, back to the actual thread. The other issue is on the politics board anyway. Poll should focus on current users, past users, and possible users of the program. What should be asked, and how, would have to be tempered to the target, as those within will have a different perspective probably. Also, different wording at least if aimed at youth or adults; both should be part of it if possible. Should the BSA change its basic foundation in order to cater to a greater number, or should it remain faithful to its core? Certainly a query for current adults within the program. For youth within, perhaps something as to what makes the program fun for them? What could they do without, or change? For youth not in the program, something about what might bring them in; or why do they not feel scouting is for them? Would have to have some real thought go into any type of question though. For adults outside the program, something along the line of how do you view the BSA? You might need to ask if they have ever been in scouting as a preface to the survey. All, or most of the questions might be better if they included a "why". While there are those on this board who seem to think that a large majority of scouters would like major changes, I think they might be surprised. Most that I know, including those decades younger, specifically note they continue "because" it so far has not buckled to the outside pressures. But, polls and statistics are prone to skewing, no matter how careful you are.

The issues in San Diego are technically related to the religious element; but really probably is more due to the Gay issue. But since they could not attack them on the Gay issue, they found an excuse on religious grounds. It has been appealed to the Supreme Court now, and hopefully will finally get a proper hearing, as the 9th Circuit is obviously biased from the start. The plaintiffs in the case have very little "real" standing it seems, but somehow they continue to get enough sympathy from the PC crowd to hang in there. But the latest decisions had some interesting vibrations hinting at that they are not as secure as they thought. But, it is correct that it is a crime that this is taking away from the real program. Yet, who is responsible, really? People that have no care at all about the effect on the youth who are served, nor even the benefits to the city. Lets face it; if you are familiar with San Diego, you know that the parkland in Balboa not controlled by private groups is overgrown and a haven for drug, homeless, and crime. If the city takes back the BSA site, it will fall into the same category. And if Mission Bay is lost, it may very well fall on hard times too, as the BSA was "chosen" by the other youth serving groups to build and run the aquatic center, because it was felt they had the best resources and capability. Common sense, and the benefit to the majority continues to fall victim to selfish egotism. Don't bother to make your standard harpyish comment Merlyn. We already know what your thoughts are.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Beavah; I do not know where you get the idea there is a general problem out West. Yes, like anything scouting, if something bad happens, it makes the papers. But scouting in our area has very good repoire with most of the federal agencies. Most units DO leave things better than they found it; they do try to be considerate of others, but groups will make more noise than two people; we do regular trail maintenance in the local forests and parks, as well as Eagle project. When one of our groups does do something out of line, or becomes known for bad habits, they generally are made aware of their errors. Our High Adventure committees teach all levels of camping and backpacking, including wilderness first aid, and they are also involved with the Trail Boss program. So, I am not sure why you would make such a broad stroked comment in the negative.

GaH, Vol, and others. It is hard, but rather than responding to our favorite gadfly, or whatever he is, just ignore him. If it happens enough,perhaps he will go away. Or, maybe he will resort to disagreeing with himself, and calling himself names. Give it a try. It certainly feels less frustrating.

Simply stated, the Law is a positive statement of expectation. "A Scout Is"; meaning that our expectation is that he will be trustworthy, and so on, to the best of his ability, and he swears this on his honor. But the idea of honor seems to have become pretty ambiguous at best. When I first became a scout in 1955, the fine print of trustworthy said, "A scout's honor is to be trusted. If he were to violate this honor by lying, cheating, or not doing exactly a given task when trusted on his honor, he may be directed to hand over his scout badge". For some reason, most of us took that to heart, and tried "to do our best". In regard to the lack of skills demonstrated by many senior scouts, it has a lot to do with the pressure to advance too fast, and the idea that retesting is somehow wrong. In the earlier years, First Class was the highest rank. Star, Life, and Eagle were simply extensions of that with the addition of merit badges and more service. Until WWII, scouts were registered as First Class with merit badges, rather than Star, Life, or Eagle; or very early Life, Star, and Eagle. Too often today, we act as if having high expectation of our young people is wrong. But, that is actually what will be most likely to drive them to better results, while also increasing their confidence and esteem. I will always remember how I felt when I finally was able to tie all 7 tenderfoot knots two times in succession for two weeks in a row. That was the troops requirement to pass that test; and it took me forever, as I have always been challenged by rope work. Same went for signaling for First Class.

Whatever you might think about some of GAH's comments, I think he has posted something to discuss here. There is too much truth to much of his comment on this element, I fear. So, where are we in reality? Do we really have the willingness to hold our scouts to a higher threshold and real effort to "truly live" the fundamental intent of the Oath and Law? I have to agree with GAH on much of this. Too often I see leaders unwilling to make the "hard" decision to hold a scout truly accountable. Too many are afraid of what others think, of parents coming down on them, or other such things. "A Scout is Brave", and Scouters should be too. Part of that is "standing up" to what is right, and facing dissatisfaction with your actions if you are secure in them; not shying away from holding ourselves and our scouts to the intent of the foundations of Scouting. Lets be honest, if we are able. Society today, especially in the United States, has some very odd ideas as to what is acceptable in a truly "civil" society. The acceptance of foul language by too many, the role modeling of bad behavior as okay if it comes from a celebrity, too often excusing egocentric attitudes at the expense of others if they have money or notoriety, ignoring the need for simple courtesy in our everyday interactions, making fun of people who "do" stand up for simple manners, and so on. Scouting still retains an element of a higher plain of civility than the general population. That is why the too often sneered remark, "you are such a Boy Scout", or "what are you, an Eagle Scout?" is so common. For some reason, it seems to me, that some on this board would like that element to go away; that somehow, actually playing up the basics is wrong, or should be modified to be almost unrecognizable compared to the original. And yes, God and Spirituality are a keystone to this foundation, and have been from the start. The other two "G's" likely eventually will find a compromise and way to work, given the willingness of both sides to be reasonable, rather than ego driven and strident. I do not think the people at the highest levels, even in the local councils, necessarily totally grasp many of the realities of what is going on in the trenches. But I do not see most of them as purposely dishonest, just too often distracted, losing focus, and perhaps not accepting that Scouting "is not ever" going to be for "everyone". If it were somehow to become that, it would be destroyed.

HiLo; What I think you are saying is that "no asks", so it is not an issue. That is the way it is supposed to be here. The problem in the U.S. is that we have a loud political wing of Gay individuals who want to be "out" and included. The BSA ban is on these individuals who feel it is necessary to "make it an issue". Those in the group who have chosen to continue on, what seems the Australian way from what I read, are still involved and not a problem. If someone in Australia were to make their lifestyle a focus, rather than simply "play the game", would they be asked to leave?

Having read a half dozen various bio's of BP, I am fairly cognizant of the basics relating to the program development in England, and much of the other countries. BSA is for the most part the farthest from the original in many aspects, and always has been since its founding by Boyce and the other prominent gentlemen of the time. BP definitely felt the patrol system should be the core of the boy leadership model; that has little room for debate from my readings. It certainly was a concern of his when he met with West in the early stages. GBB finally coerced West into allowing the basic model to be put forth, and that resulted int the 1929 version of the Patrol Leader Handbook. GBB also continued to press for a better version of the Fieldbook, and finally got it in 1944; pretty much stayed the same until mid 60's, and in my opinion still the best ever written. There are dozens of bio's of BP available, many only small pamphlets, but a few that are quite informative. Most are only known widely by serious historians of the program, and were written in England. Also are a lot of peripheral things that reflect a great deal on his thoughts and their changes as he got older and focused on how he felt it should be directed. Late in his life, as WWII was developing, he became very outspoken about Scouting being a "peace" movement. You can also get a lot of perspective on BP and his thoughts by reading others who simply reference him in depth when discussing their own scouting related experience. But, no matter what the past reflects, we now live in completely different cultural milieu, and we need to find ways to both keep the best and modify it to today, and not be afraid to embrace new things and find ways to work them in as well. Living in the beginning of the 20th century is not a practical approach to sustaining the basic program, though it will always have its place. Of course, if we, as a world society continue some our errant ways, we may find that those skills are more usable than we might wish.

Am well past half of the book HOBNAILS and HEATHER, a book about the first international hike by senior scouts from BSA, taken in England and France in 1928. They had the honor of meeting with B.P. at his estate, "Pax Hill", and having lunch and conversation. They mention B.P. asking one of their leaders about how did BSA scouts use the "patrol method". So, there was, it seems, an interest, maybe even a small concern, that BSA was not quite using the system as he felt it might be best used. I suspect, that a little digging would turn up other hints at this. But, B.P. was known to be very supportive overall of BSA, and especially its growth and popularity. Others, especially some historians might have more to add here of course. (This message has been edited by skeptic)

For me, the whole intent of this new requirement is to try to help the scout to focus on these things themselves, rather than our impression as to how he lives up to them. We should already be observing these elements regularly anyway if we are doing our job. This requirement seems to aim the scout to reflect a bit more on the actual meaning of the law, and yes the oath. For many, it is so repetitive, that it almost has no meaning. So, knowing that they will be asked this they may actually begin to think a little more about it directly. Keeping track, as noted already, simply requires a minor notation in the book as to what points they discussed already. That is not exactly a hard thing to do I would not think. Rather than bloviate about how terrible and difficult this is, simply mold it to your best approach, and keep it consistent. I personally will try to make sure all the points are covered, as that is how I see the intent, but if your approach is different, it is your approach. It is one more way to help the boy think more about his own character and development as a good citizen and person. This cannot be harmful, and certainly is one of the foundation stones of scouting. JMHO

Yesterday it got to 78, and today is in the low 70's. We are sooooo spoiled.

Philmont is the diamond, but there are a number of others as well, and looks to be another good possibility coming on line. Besides that, there are probably at least a couple of dozen exceptional camps belonging to councils that have extremely good programs, like Emerald Bay on Catalina, a couple in the north Great Basin area and Rockies, and from what I have read some in the Great Lakes and northeast mountains. So we are blessed, even with the sell offs of some camps and council issues. Room for growth, and a new century to work at it. Meanwhile, find ways to keep the "outing" in the program, and focus on the local level.

Whoa here folks. Take a deep breath and quit being so defensive. If you feel that you are being attacked somehow, I apologize; but that was not the intent. But, you very well may be substantiating my question, as being so thin skinned that a simple question upsets you is part of the problem. In most cases, you can do what seems right, and move forward. If your decision is not seen as correct, then you simply weigh the criticism and adjust or decide you are right with your decision. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but many individuals seem to ask the question before even making an attempt to understand or simply make a rational, logical interpretation. Again, I see this is kids in the classroom. They will not even try to do a problem without help, or answer a question without coaching. It appear "almost afraid" to make an attempt, because "someone" will criticize or they will be wrong. That is certainly not the example I want to portray as a leader. And I see this way more often than I would hope.

As I have reviewed the various postings recently, I am struck by how often it appears that we seem to have a lot of people that can not make a decision based on what they reasonable interpretations of what is written. This is similar to the syndrome that youth appear to have regarding attempting something because it seems logical or possible, without looking for direction or approval; what I perceive as a fear of making a mistake or being perceived negatively. My imagination? Or is this something others notice?

Can someone give a clue as to when I might expect to be contacted regarding the assignment they have given me? Need to know such things as uniforming needs, sleeve idents, schedule for reporting, and so on. Have a troop I need to get to camp before the event, but do not know if I will have time to go, though I really should if possible. Thanks.

Still see little recognition of realities in the world. It is one thing to say someone has a right to do something. It is quite another thing to accept that few will "actually" associate when it happens. The so called more open minded youth referred to still do not generally "hang" with Gays; nor do most of the outspoken PC adults. They can allow them to exist, but choose to not include them in their personal spaces in most instances. And, that is what would happen, most likely in a scout unit. Acceptance would be marginal, unless the entire unit was made up of similar individuals. This is seen with African Americans, Latinos, and most other culturally defined groups in large urban areas, and even small towns at times. That is why we have recognized areas within the large cities that reflect these preferences. Thus, the local option would likely simply see few, if any successful units absorb openly Gay individuals. And if forced to accept them, the units would most likely fold, defeating the intent in the first place. These "realities" are ignored. This is clearly apparent if you are looking at what is actually occurring in communities. Acceptance simply allows a group to exist with less, hopefully, animosity. It does not change the fact that they will still pretty much be a group within their own world, and only peripherally involved with the larger populace. Maybe that will change eventually, but right now, it is the way it is. In regard to the atheist, it simply is not part of scouting. And, if that is your belief, then accept that you are not able to be a member. It is a core value dating back to BP himself. Agnostics, on the other hand, could be assimilated without much effort, if they are willing to simply admit that something spiritually greater exists, but they have yet to make a decision as to what works for them. Simply MHO.

Bad news; your "coon skin hat" wasn't real either!

GHB; I certainly would not consistently pass all of your noted tasks, especially the birds. And, fire starting without matches is a hit or miss thing for me at best; though the requirement has never been to do so anyway. If I have to box the compass beyond sixteen, I might misname something; and after 32, I likely would simply botch it up pretty well. Now, if you just want it put back in its container, I can do that well, I think.

Guess it depends on the definition; but most of the ones in my units during the late 50's and early 60's were at least above average students, and interested in science, and seemed to be more than willing to explore outside their known world. But, in reality, camping was more drive in then too, as equipment was still heavy and uncomfortable. Of course, driving in then did not subject you to much but the outdoors, as the idiots who make the more accessible sites such problems today, were pretty much non existent.

"Are there really many people today who actually believe that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time?" Pack, where you been? Just ask Fred and Wilma. Of course, we also have Barney in his regal hue. [:0}

There are lapel pins available for many, if not all, the scouter awards. I have one for Silver Beaver, Eagle, and God and Country; I wear them at Eagle dinners and council annual meetings. As noted, there is no reason the actual Eagle cannot be worn with civilian attire, if it is appropriate for the event.

It seems to me that Eamonn points out once again the reality of how it has been, and likely should be. If it is not made into a public issue, then it never becomes a problem. Once it crosses that line and becomes a problem of some kind, whether hetero or Gay, then it has to be dealt with. This is as it should be. The ban has been so taken out of context by its detractors, that it is hardly really understood. First, it has never included youth, as long as they do not make things public displays. The adult ban is on "avowed Gays", those individuals who feel the need to push their agenda and lifestyle in a manner that makes it a public issue that causes problems and threatens some people. Just like hetero individuals, the issue should simply not be public. Most units quietly push "known" philanderers out if it becomes a problem within the group. They do the same for drug users, public alcoholics, foul mouthed or abusive people, and so on. It would not be nearly the problem politically that it is if it had not become the PC agenda of a few "avowed" individuals, most of whom were never actually involved in the first place.

Can a "genuinely independent scientist" even get noted? Apparently, even here, the lobbyists are in control on both sides. I personally lean toward GaH's #3. But, as is obvious in all of these debates; what we think means little. Oh well. Merry Christmas (my belied), or whatever suits you at this hopefully respectful holiday period.

Merlyn; You are correct; they do have the "right". But it is no longer a "right" when it infringes directly on someone else. So, exercise your rights anywhere you want, as long as they do not try to trump others.