skeptic

Merlyn: Where is it written that BSA has to serve Gay and Atheist kids, especially the Atheist. Since the BSA has beliefs that are not in conjunction with them, why would they need to serve them. Secondly,there is no restriction on the kids of Gays, only on allowing their adult guardians to be leaders. As long as the kids will adhere to the ideals of BSA, they can be members. If guardians or parents choose to keep their kids from the program, that is their choice. They can and do find other alternatives.

Merlyn says: "Skeptic, it doesn't matter how many public services works the BSA does; that cannot justify violating the civil rights of other people. Your entire argument is a red herring along the lines of "we're nice, they aren't, so shouldn't we (the good guys) get preferential treatment, even if it infringes on the rights of those undesirables over there?" First, I have "never" said any of these various groups were undesirable; that is your misconception. I choose to generally disagree with many of them, but they are not undesirables in my view, simply self centered and individuals with whom I choose to not associate if possible. Second, lets change the "preferential" requirement. What if the government entity or program said something along the lines of this. "Any group who gives x amount of service to improve the facilities, will get a discounted rate of"? Or some other similar stipulation. Speaking in terms of people hours, at a minimum wage comparison, most likely the stipulation would more than cover this reduced cost. Would that then be okay? Or do you still see it as unfair somehow? Calico states; "Oh, and the idea posited by Beavah that the BSA, or any group, may deserve preferential treatment because of all the hours it puts into service to communities is absolutely abhorent to me, and should be to any Scout, Scout Leader, and especially any Arrowmen." Again, no one has suggested BSA, or any other group given these preferences should expect them, or at least that was not the intent of the comment. But, if the agency or whatever feels this is appropriate based on a very long history of contributions to it or other elements of community, it is then their decision based on factors they see as important or whatever. Again, it is in the balance of the longer and broader view. Still, as noted in the question to Merlyn above; would it still be abhorrent to you then?

So Beavah gets back to the broader point of this thread. Over almost a hundred years the BSA has contributed untold hours, likely well into the tens of millions at this point, to various public improvements and assistance. So, as recognition for these contributions, most government entities have given them some special consideration on fees on public property and services. The contributions of the BSA have far out weighed the pittance of so called unfairness. What have the Atheists of America, or whatever given over the same period? What has the ACLU or the Gay organizations given in comparison? I am sure that Merlyn will claim the ACLU has given service by its law suits in various forms. And there is some truth to that; but many of those suits ended up with them getting huge payouts as well that went to them directly. The scales are badly out of balance when you look at the broader picture. Still, this point will be ignored or made light of, as it reflects too clearly on the obvious bias and lack of community in the "disparagers'" camp. And now back to the repetitive harangues.

All councils and districts seem to have the "few" WB'ers that reflect a bit poorly on the program. It is funny though, that in our council anyway, we have a few mostly really old time scouters who find WB to be fighting words. They simply hate Woodbadge, and put it down whenever the opportunity allows. Why; who knows for sure, other than they met someone who went through the old course and somehow suddenly acted like they knew everything. Of course these old goats (lol) already had that attitude, and pretty much the skills to prove it. You learn to accept the good and the not so good, and put it in context. All training is useful. What we do with it is the real test. I found all the courses I took at Philmont to be great learning as well; but the scouting camaraderie there was always almost overwhelming. I hope to get back at least once more before I get "too" old, if that is possible.

Added to the loom types, you have special issues like jambo, Philmont, or commemoration of something in the council. Often those tend to be more desirable, especially if few were actually issued or sold.

Merlyn: The scouts built the building, and have maintained it for all these years. The city reneged on its contract. $200,000 will go a long way to drive program in "that" part of the city. Proximity to the customer is always helpful. And yes, public properties are notorious for being run down, especially if they cannot find a lessee because of a down economy. As far as service goes, we are not talking about service by maintaining the property; we are talking about actual man/boy hours rendered by 100's of scouts and scouters for all types of community entities such as parks, schools, and special events. Add in the aid given to other charitable private groups, and it is huge. In our small council, the Eagle projects alone account for over 60,000 hours of service. What serves the common good more? Trying to force your opinions on others and suing if you disagree; or simply compromising and letting positive groups function as they see fit? I realize that this means nothing to you. So, I will stop "rattling your cage" and go back to ignoring you for a while.

"I'd like to know how the BSA's e.g. litigation over the Cradle of Liberty building is supposed to "help the community" Perhaps by allowing continuation of a positive program in the city, and keeping a substantial piece of land from turning into a weed field, and becoming run down. That is almost certainly what will happen should the city take it over, given their budget and the economy as a whole. Of course none of that matters to a few individuals, as has continued to be pretty clear.

The intent was to try and get an answer from the carpers as to what they actually do or have done to better the communities in which they live, and in which Scouting constantly contributes service. It really was not intended to refer to politics and the two party issues. But, it could, in that the "sore losers" seem to have no alternate ideas, just whining that they do not like what is being done. Their blinders during the past 8 years must have suddenly fallen off. Frankly, I really did not expect any real answer to my intended question, as I do not see the litigants and their supporters doing anything of particular good for the community at large, other than things that are specific to their own needs and issues. Still, perhaps I have missed something.

"What do you consider the minority view?" That should be obvious; but it is of course the diatribes on 2 of the 3 G's. And yes, they are very definitely minority views, unless there is a definition of majority that is new and improved.

While at least some of the strident voices appearing here seem to at least actually be involved, and contributing something, it seems obvious that the most disparaging and unhappy ones are not. So, what, other than trying to force a minority view on the majority through questionable tactics and PC opinions, what have you done to improve your community (assuming you feel forcing minority views as improving things)? What have any of the mostly puppet litigants done to improve their own lot, or that of those with whom they share their town and its resources?

At least in the camps with which I am familiar, the staff gets a number of things not noted. A small clothing allowance at the start, plus usually 2-3 class B shirts, and sometimes neckerchiefs too. Of course the room and board is a factor. Not sure if the state law has something to do with it in California, but they show this as part of their pay. We have one of those "small" camps, and it is true that it is really hard to staff and run, as we cannot compete with the mega-camps most of the time, even though we have a good site and some unique opportunities. We are down to 2 weeks of regular camp, plus an LDS week, and a couple of weeks of Webloes. It is strange how negative issues seem to drag on forever, even when they are fixed. We had a couple of years of really serious dining hall problems, and the camp's rep has been that it seems ever since, even though it has been more or less solved for a number of years. I suspect that being in SCal without a real lake is an issue too; if we were in some parts of the country, perhaps it would not matter as much. Keeping the smaller camps viable perhaps should be one of the National concerns, as they are so important to the base of Scouting.

Over the years I have watched almost every young DE that had a good youth scouting background resign. Why? Because, as noted, it is not what they signed up for. Fortunately, many of them have then become volunteers as their time allowed. The second factor in our area is simply the cost of living; what I would have considered a good salary at their age is no where nearly enough to sustain them unless they have other income sources. I just sent a letter to Mr. Mazzuca this past week with some concerns and thoughts; and this was one of them. It seems to me that National really needs to recognize that there are areas in which some sort of additional "cost of living" pay needs to be considered. The other thing noted already is how often the numbers are the most important thing for pro's. Too often in our district, with its turnstile pro's, I have seen too many older, established units run into problems and sort of die on the vine while across the district they spend resources on starting or trying to start new units which fail at an alarming rate. One would hope that long time, stable units would be the first priority, but of course they usually are not. JMTCW

Another indirect comparison you could use is the Philmont and other high adventure base adult restrictions. They are there for a reason; basically the one you allude to. In our area, the more popular summer camps that have really fun and advanced programs also have adult number restrictions. Maybe pointing these things out could jar their understanding a bit. We old guys used to go out alone with 8-12 on occasion; though I always tried to have at least one other with me for my sanity. Good luck.

It occurs to me that maybe we should replace the "scales" with a "spinning wheel", or perhaps a "spider-web with a gowned judge in the middle".

Don't hold your breath Ed, unless you like the color blue. Merlyn: So someone who is a leader in an anti-religion group makes a statement publicly that is not accurate, or against the current interpretation of law, but because he is wrong, it does not count? In that case, your continued specious determination that BSA is a religious organization is wrong too; as it has been noted and corrected numerous times that the statement made by one careless person in BSA that they were a religious organization was inaccurate, and not the case. Yet, you persist, as do the leftist jurists. It is a pretty fine line you walk one might think. The only difference is where the statement was made; and that has been corrected by the BSA lawyers since. Lot of odd-ball spiders in your arena it seems.

It is not just new boys unfortunately. Sometimes, it is just crazy, the thinking of a parent. We have a 15 yo who is one of the best prepared and capable campers I have ever had, even at 11. He has been backpacking, hiking, and camping since he was about 5 (with his single mom) and can walk you into the ground. She often works out of the area, and has left him with other families, and even by himself over a couple of nights. Yet, she wrote me concerned he was too young for the OA Ordeal (the overnight by himself). I think I have gotten her through it; and he has no concern at all. Go figure.

Merlyn: You state, "Since public schools were the single largest chartering partner, it was pretty obvious that the BSA WAS a public accommodation". Now who is making things up? Churches have always been the primary sponsors of BSA groups, and were followed by service organizations for many years, with schools being a distant third. For a relatively short period, Cubbing was prominent in elementary schools via the PTA when it was still a parent, teacher organization, rather than a political group. But even then, churches were by far the primary sponsors. You also once again make your far-fetched statement that BSA is a religious organization,"how many other "religious organizations" get to recruit schoolkids?" The convoluted logic in this statement has been debated to death here, as well as in other forums; and, just because a few questionable rulings have been made by left leaning jurists does not make it true. It will, as usual, be entertaining to read your strident disagreement; maybe we will be treated to something you have not repeated dozens of times. Have fun.

Our most challenging problem with Terrorism is dealing with our national "Gang" issues. Call them "gangbangers", or whatever; but they are "Terrorists" as far as I am concerned. And, in most of the larger cities they have links to the drug cartels and so on. We live in fear of another "911", yet we seem almost willing to accept the gangs. Makes little sense to me. Then, I am old and set in my ways; and I think simple respect for others, and common sense should be enough.

I wonder if we get to "a chicken in every pot", if PETA will have a fit? Personally, being raised by parents and grandparents of the depression, and being a "50's" latch-key kid, I seem to not be willing to get too careless. We simply only buy what we can afford, even before this current fiasco hit. Use of credit cards only happens if we can pay it off completely. Adjust as needed; fewer movies in the theater (almost none, actually), fewer restaurant visits, more careful planning on driving and covering as many needs on one trip as possible, and even buying basic canned goods and some produce at the "99 Cent Store". Not having ever been particularly bound by fads, I have generally worn my clothes out; yet I still have items that are like new and no shortage of things to wear. Common sense; that thing that seems to have gotten lost to far too many of the more recent generations. JMHO

Ed, while "some" SM's may not be qualified, we would hope that they would have enough integrity to refer their scouts to a listed counselor that was, or work with a qualified assistant to assure the proper fulfillment of the badge. When I first became a SM, I referred scouts to another more qualified counselor until I felt my knowledge and experience was satisfactory. Now, I own the camping badge in my troop unless there are unusual situations. They can work on requirements at summer camp with the offered badge, but I hold the final word on the completion. If a troop has a SM who "does not camp with his boys", then they need a new leader. Since so much of the badge requires direct knowledge of what the scout does on outings, and so on, it simply makes sense to hang that responsibility on the leader, while making it clear they need to only undertake it when they are qualified. Still, there will always be leaders who do not uphold the integrity of the program. Hopefully they are few and far between.

In our council, all SM's are automatically camping counselors unless they choose not to be. It is recognized that most of the times they are the most qualified for this particular badge. May be that way in other councils, or might not.

Have seen a number of versions of the bacon stretcher. The ones I like the best are the rubber band type that crank around a spindle. I have been known to take a boy's hat and put it in his left hand and fan the fire to solve the smoke shifter problem. Agree that much of the concern is way overblown. As long as no one is physically hurt or endangered, most of these things are simply fun for all, and part of being accepted into the group, as has been noted.

Ah, the dream collectors sometimes have. While doing research on something in our town, I discovered a store that was the first distributor in the city. But, it was too late. The building had been sold, and the store emptied. Had fantasies of going to their basement and finding things from the 20's and 30's. Oh well.

Our troop has been in the UMC basement of their current building since 1928, and we date to 1921. At one time, most of the boys were also member families. Now we are the only troop on the poor end of town, and have not had a church member in the troop for over 10 years, other than myself and a couple of adults on the charter. Two Eagles in past 3 years from the congregation, but other troops. They all live at the other end of the city, the higher income area, and so we are not convenient. They have always been supportive, but few members help anymore, other than give us donations. We can use the church van, the gym, and any other part if it fits the schedules. Have a new pack now, but so far no boys from the church other than the cubmaster's son. Hope to have some soon though, as we need boys. In our council, every Methodist troop, and they are in every community, is over 50 years old.

Gooseberry with lots of whipped cream.