skeptic

Is it time to bring back POGO? We certainly have a big enough swamp to row in. I am sure Walt Kelly could have a ball with it if he were still here. For those too young to know of whom and what I speak, Google it. (This message has been edited by skeptic)

Over the years, I have furnished record data on training to the local council, and supposedly to national through them. None of this info is apparent in my on-line records. Do we know if there is a system in place to get these things, such as PTC training, Woodbadge, advanced scouter training for positions and so on? The only thing that shows are recently taken on-line courses. If there isn't; should there be?

Lisa: SR540-- Covered it pretty well. I can reflect on it from both a scout and leader perspective; but when I went in 1960 as a scout, they did not have nearly the choices now available. Still, the experience was one of the highlights of my life, period. Did it keep me in, as a 16 year old? Probably contributed to my continued involvement through HS, especially since I lived in the hinterland desert of San Bernardino. In 85, I was 1st ASM. Saw many of the things SR540-- noted. One thing that I noted that applied to both experiences, IMHO, was that scouts who had to work to go, get there partly or almost completely on their own efforts, truly appreciated the experience, and took advantage of it far more enthusiastically than others. That is not to say that those whose parents simply plopped down the bucks did not enjoy, or whatever, as most did; but there were a few of these that were the real problem children of the troop. And, most of them did not stay in the program past their "forced" Eagle. Overall, if a scout can go, it is generally a growing experience. Personally, I still think that 12 is a bit young; but I do not make that decision.

Not a bad presentation for introduction. Did note that there seems to be an error about when scouting began. They say BP started it in 1900; but we all should know that it began on Brownsea in 1907. Possibly just a script error that was missed of course. While on the site, I reviewed, then watched a short presentation on the generations. Found it to be very enlightening and gave me some insight that had not necessarily occurred to me. I am sort of an overlap generation, technically, according to them, "mature", but really more of a "boomer". Guess being on the cusp will do that to you.

Just for board clarification; this is pretty much a continuation of an earlier interchange from January by this same individual about a "leader" whose "wife says", and so on. While there is always a chance for veracity in these things, the more innuendo and vague information, the less likely. Add this to the earlier posts, and I would not find much credence here. Certainly, in our council, this almost certainly would not be swept under the carpet, no matter how high up or how much popularity the scouter had. We have lost at least 3 of these types over the years; and it cost the council major contribution dollars in one case. Sign me "skeptical".

The Scout: There is a difference between censorship and simply cleaning up after gutter mentality. Not all things deserve to be viewed, just because they were posted. I too am curious, as I did not see the items in question; but it is clear that they were completely out of line and insulting. JMHO

You might find a JOTA patch of some issue on eBay. Or someone on the board may have one or more. Good luck.

Once again, we likely are seeing the "law suit fear" boogie man. It has surprised me, frankly, that they have allowed it this long. I can see a disaster ready to happen if a group, under the current rules, were to have an injury or cause damage. Even though we would hope we could encourage self reliance using this method, it has all the possibilities to cause serious consequences on rare occasions. So; CYA is the only way to go for the legal eagle protectors. Too bad.

Would a moderator consider please putting the pig out of its misery? The squealing is tiresome.

Over the years I have on occasion made up an award to recognize special things, usually at summer camp. Two funny ones (in my opinion) were given too adults. We went to Cherry Valley on Catalina years ago, before they got rid of the wild pigs. The small groups would come down from the upper canyon and visit each campsite to see what they could find. The first night, it happened they were making a huge racket trying to get at our trash bag which was tied up high. All the scouts were watching from their tents, their flashlights lighting up the camp. An ASM decided he would scare them off, came out barefooted and only in his BVD's, and chucked a rock at them. He hit a yearly in its side. It turned, and stared with little reddish eyes at him (it had short new tusks already). We fully expected it to charge the ASM; but it just went back to jumping at the bag. The next day, the ASM told me he was concerned he had made a major error in judgment, and was not sure what he would have done if it had charged. At the COH later that year, he was presented with the "Champion Pig Chucker Award", much to the delight of the scouts. I have tried to make sure that scouts with special challenges at camp get some sort of recognition, as well as those that have been the leaders in everything. It really makes a difference. There was one troop here in SoCal years ago that had a special troop neckerchief that was a canvas for hike awards. Every hike, they added some small symbol of the hike; and they also had special items for days camped. The older scouts, and leaders had stuff on both sides sometimes. It was really cool.

As I look back even farther than most posts, 1959, I see many parts of the Ordeal and Brotherhood that have either changed almost completely, or been modified to the point of having little or no real point any more. Was there, at times, hazing and unfairness; yes, on occasion. But it was not common, and mostly was dealt with when a problem became known. I would agree that putting some of the mystery back into the Order and its rituals would possibly make it significant again for many who now see no purpose. Of course, I also would like to see true selection by troop members again, including a limit on how many based on troop size and eligibility. That in itself would put some of the purpose back into it; because it would no longer simply be an extension of becoming first class and having a minimum camping experience. It would possibly also help if Scoutmasters were given clearer guidance on their role in approving the selection. Too many leaders either do not understand, or choose to not ruffle parental feathers, by not withdrawing unprepared or undeserving scouts from eligibility. Yes, they do exist. Personally, I counsel any eligible scout who is at the minimum, or possibly shows lack of maturity and intent. Have one this year who decided he would wait a year after we talked a bit about the intent and expectations of the honor. There is always that fine line that has to be walked by leaders; but they need to act as "leaders", not only in OA eligibility, but also in conferences and counseling. We do our scouts no favor by simply passing them on; that is one of the huge problems in the schools today. Accountability is a learned thing; but if there is none in childhood, then there will be none in adulthood.

An acquaintance sent me this link about a supposed plot to secretly turn scouts in non-Christians. I found it basically silly and amusing; yet wonder if others may have encountered this and what their thoughts are. Here is the link, if anyone is interested. This might be better in the politics section, so moderators, please feel free to move. http://catholicintl.com/articles/OrderoftheArrow-JohnSalza.pdf

I see this whole thread as someone "poking the pig"; therefore, other than this comment, I will ignore it as having no worth.

Trev: "This is the way I see ("skew") it: BSA is telling two minority groups that they are not welcome while at the same time knowing it has no factual basis for claiming they can not be the "best type of citizens". " First of all, no reputable leader is telling the scouts either/or in relation to homosexuality; it is not a topic for discussion. But, if it becomes a problem due to various scenarios (most, again likely due to adult intervention), then they could be asked to leave. As far as Atheists are concerned; they cannot meet the criteria of membership. If they choose to adher to those beliefs, or lack of, then they cannot be members. No one is saying they are "BAD" people (or, at least nobody should be saying that), simply that they do not meet the parameters for membership. Why is it so hard for a few to understand that membership is a privilege, no matter what the organization? Why do a few feel they somehow should change a group, rather than live their lives as they choose, and let others do the same? As has been stated and reinforced numerous times on these forums; scouting is not for everybody! It has requirements for membership. If you do not meet them, and do not like them, then find something else to do. The harder you push, the less effective you will be. Case in point; more private donations directly to Scouting, and fewer to United Way in some parts of the country when the PC people were able to make it an issue. Who got hurt the worst; Scouting, who got direct donations in excess of what they would have gotten, or the UW, which lost money which might have gone to other worthwhile organizations as well as Scouting? Merlyn: While I cannot prove it by any means, I can say that I know of no active leaders on the basic level in my area who make these things an issue, period. And, on the rare occasion that something rears its head, the youth involved are made to understand pretty quickly that disagreement with people does not mean they are bad people or, "pariahs" (thanks for adding the h). The negative tone in most of these discussions is from outside the organization on both sides for the most part. And, so we get back to the reality that there are a few fringe people who do not really care about the youth involved, only in their personal crusades and ideologies. Anyone who recognizes themselves, put the shoe on and walk away for a change.

Trev: Actually, they are told that if they want to participate, they need to meet the BSA requirements. And, for the most part, the so called "won't let them join" refers to adults anyway. It is really tiresome to hear the same old nonsense that by actually adhering to their basic tenets, rather than changing for a minority (many who want to push an agenda)the BSA is in the wrong. You can skew it anyway you like. Those of us in the trenches lean over backward to accept any boy. It is the adults that tend to cause the problem. Case in point from years back now. When the Randall twins were interviewed by an Orange County reporter about what they believed, the boys both agreed that they thought "Mother Nature" was responsible for the natural phenomena, not God. So, they still were assigning some type of spiritual entity to their beliefs, which would have been sufficient if "Daddy, the publicity seeking lawyer, had not gotten into it. They were no way old enough to have reached any kind of final decision on this; but somehow, because Dad made an issue and refused to let them associate, they were deprived. So, whose fault was it? I lean towards the father; but also felt that some of the adults in the local unit were a bit out of line as well. Still, it likely could have all been worked out if the father had not needed to become a public crusader about the awful BSA. Let the organization evolve on its own, rather than try to force everything. It will eventually get where it needs to get. Meanwhile, accept the FACT that not everyone can be part of everything; clubs and organizations are created with certain rules and ideas to be supported, so if you do not fit, find somewhere you do. Just because you DO NOT AGREE does not make the group or individual with whom you have a problem a paria. FJO

Like many topics here, we are not privy to the complete picture. We are only getting the view, expressed through a secondary source, that the parents are being unreasonable and are upsetting the boy because it is an on-going occurrence. On the other hand, we do not really know; was this the 5th time in a week that "Johnnie" was late by 10-20 minutes? Is he always late by a few minutes, and always has what would appear to be a reasonable excuse? We may not be getting the whole thing. I remember as a kid that I had my neighborhood side, and my in house side; and they were often complete opposites. Not saying this is the case, as we cannot really know. But let's not paint the parents (noted by the original poster to not seem unreasonable)with a broad brush of psychological abuse. As far as the language goes, once a youth is past 10 or 11, they know the intent of a word, even if they substitute nonsense or alternate words. Context, tone, and attitude will often convey it as well. We need to try to make them aware that they are not fooling anyone, and that this is not a particularly good reflection on them to the majority of people. It is always difficult to discern these things, especially from here-say and partial information. JMHO

A long while back I had a similar problem with a boy. He transferred to us from another troop, as he said the other troop did not treat him right. We were actually the third troop. When he was unable to pass some rank requirements, due to having not mastered the material, his mother came to me with the race card. He was from a bi-racial family, and his mother was white. I tried to mollify her and clarify things, but she was convinced he was being treated unfairly due to his color. He never did advance, and soon afterwards, left the program. I felt a bit guilty, and discussed it with the committee and some scouting friends familiar with some of the activities, as we did them together. No one seemed to see any evidence. Since then, I have seen occasions outside of scouting where it is obvious that someone is simply looking for an excuse to make this claim; that no matter what you do, it will be claimed there is a bias. In these cases, you will not find a solution; or at least it is highly unlikely. Not much of an answer; but it may shed some light on your problem. Hopefully, you will be more fortuneate, and find a way to get past it. Good luck.

Calico; While I hope your take on it is right, I fear that more likely it is because many, especially those who have their noses out of joint to one side or the other, really do not have knowledge of the prominent men involved in BSA's beginning. I suspect that both Beard and Seton would be appalled at some of the things that go on today in the program and the statements and claims that are made. On the other hand, they might also be pleased that some element of the program still clings to the things they found important in life and in leading youth. From my perspective, one of our biggest problems today is the egocentricity of much of the populace, and the misconception that "freedom" means "license". One can hope that harder times might bring the sense of community back into vogue, rather than the continued "me first" attitude currently so common. Only time will tell; and that includes this presidency which is still in its infancy. For me, it is far too early to pass judgement.

Who was/is "Daniel Seaton"? Possibly a clone of Dan Beard and Earnest Thompson Seton? Just wondered.

Yep, we, as adults, need to recognize that we have to draw a line as to what is acceptable in our units, and our own lives for that matter. The problem I see is that for whatever reason, too many people seem to think that we need to give youth a pass on things we really know are not acceptable, because they are just "testing the boundaries", or they are "just being kids", and other weak excuses. What it seems to mean to me is that far too many adults do not have the backbone to stand up to the kids and "draw the line" where it should be drawn. As scouts, they supposedly are working on being on a higher plane than many of their peers; they have the Oath and Law as guides through life, not just scout meetings and activities. We need to talk ourselves blue in the face, if need be, with the expectation that they toe a shorter line and uphold the standards found in scouting. Otherwise, why are we even bothering?

Hal; Yep; guess I should have added the punch line. Thanks.

Beavah; Do we start with a ruler or yard-stick; or do we need to go to the two x four? Surely most of you are aware of the balky mule, the farmer, and his new bride. So, should we consider that kind of treatment for most of our representatives?

TheScout; etal: Just once I would like to see you guys suck it up and admit perhaps you aren't always smarter than the average bear. The real question might be how long would it have been for the internet, as we know it, to become a reality if the first renditions, under the government and colleges, had not occurred? Same really goes for computers too, as they were really pushed in their infancy during WWII, by the government. Rockets, modern planes, "Tang", solar energy, radar, sonar, plasma, field medicine which led to paramedics............... Many would not have gotten very far without the in field testing done by the military or NASA. Go back to your gun fetishes; many of your coveted weapons were developed for the military first. Oh well; none of that makes any difference, as Obama is "The Anti-Christ"! I almost forgot.

BrentAllen: You say you are a history expert; so what made this country what it has been until recently? Initiative, innovation, and invention, leading to solving of problems useful world-wide. Maybe we will have those again once the whiners and businesses that have become short term profiteers have left. Maybe, just maybe, if CEO's, boards of directors, and politicians on both sides had taken blinders off, they would have reacted to many of these problems in their infancies. This I want/deserve all I can get, right now attitude is a large percentage of the problem. Ignoring infrastructure breakdowns, profiteering by large groups of people (usually those with the most already), career politicians, and realities such as fossil fuels are not infinite and new technologies need to be found and developed is why we are here now. While we are at it; give Carter a break. He may not have been the best president; but he did far less harm the last. Besides, he inherited half of his problems, and had little help in Washington. His biggest flaw is probably that he is basically too moral to be a successful politician on that level. JMO; so have fun.