skeptic

Interesting that this has generated so many postings, yet when I posted about it on April 4th, there were absolutely no responses. Guess it must have something to do with whom it is that posts as to whether any attention is paid. There have also been no responses to another post of mine in the politics threads when I asked for comparisons to periods of silence in school for personal reflection to the "Day of Silence" offered in many schools in honor of the tragic death of an apparently Gay boy. Have had little or no response to a number of other posts as well over the past few months. Not sure how to take that, other than to assume that for some reason my postings are simply either ignored or possibly blocked by the basic clique on the board. Now, there is a subject for discussion. Is this board dominated by a clique of posters?(This message has been edited by skeptic)

We are now in the 3rd or 4th year of "going back", and it is really trying. We went from 5 districts to two big ones with directors. We had one roundtable on our side of the hill for 7 communities and outlying areas. About half the "old timers" who were key to the efficency of the districts stepped down or were forced out. Eight years later, a new SE and reversion to the smaller districts with an ASE and DE's. Now, we have far fewer local volunteers, and the smaller districts are suffering from lack of enough man power. Meanwhile, due to the high cost of living in our area with no external help, we cannot staff the exec needs and so the ones in place are overwhelmed with too much to do, and too many miles to drive to do their jobs well. Add to that, the financial struggles of being in Southern California and the politically correct detractors. Not much fun sometimes. But, we have finally re-opened a long dormant camp within the actual suburban confines that had been closed due to access problems with neighboring properties. And, we had a great COR there for the first time in about 15 years. So, guess we just keep working at getting it right and hope that somehow some things will come around. It would help alot if National would realize that high cost of living areas need some type of additional incentives, such as housing allowances, or actual ownership of living space that could be rented or allotted as part of the employment package, to obtain and retain beginning exectutives, and even the middle level.

Quantity and respect do not necessarily go hand in hand. Way back in 1960, as we prepared for Jamboree, we had three adult leaders (only 3 then). Two were old time Eagles with multiple palms; one had over 60, and the other close to 80. The 3rd adult had never gone beyond tenderfoot. Which one was the favorite of the youth in the troop? You probably surmise correctly, it was the one with no merit badges, but who spent his time involved with the boys, not arguing as to whom was the bigger scouting success. Lots of quotes in the anthologies that relate to pride and its possible consequences. Nough.

So, how does the recent "Day of Silence" fit in with this discussion/argument? It was the declaration and tacit approval in many schools that no one should talk last Friday to honor the boy apparently killed, at least in part, due to his sexual preference. Is this "silence" an infringement on the rights of those who believe certain choices should not be publicly acceptable? Is it okay to have a "day of silence" to recognize the "rights" of a small segment of society, but not allow similar allowance for the rights of larger segments of society? Inquiring minds want to know!

While the misplacement of said patch still annoys me, I gave up being uniform police outside my unit. Years ago I jokingly challenged a Star Scout as to what number OA lodge was the tote-n-chip lodge. That evening at dinner and flags, his leader ripped me a new one, basically telling me I had no place to suggest the patch was worn erroneously. I tried to mollify him, but he was so indignent that he was turning red. After that, I just generally take a deep breath and wonder why so simple a thing as reading a guide for placement can me so hard, and why people think that, even if they have read the proper way, that they can change it for them own desires.

Okay guys, no one said they were offended, just curious as to how this related to this particular board. Obviously, though this is the kind of thing passed around that we often just delete, it has lightened people's days. So it serves a purpose in that regard. And, there definitely is no reason to apologize for that. I will now go and read all the other "stuff" I normally would simply get rid of; never know, it may brighten my day too.

moxieman; I am with you on that about similar awards in different program areas. It has always confused me that I have a commissioner device and scouter device for a training award, worn on one knot, but the identical award for cubbing, and I believe venturing, have their own knots. Why not simply wear a cub device, or venture device? That would apply at least to the "key" and "training" awards throughout the program. Not sure where else it might apply. Those of us that have been around a long time often struggle with what is too much I think. Years ago, I rode some of my senior scous about wearing what they had earned, and properly. They came back to me and wanted to know why I did not wear medals at formal events. So, for the next few years, I made it a point to do so; but frankly, the medals are a nuisance. Today, I simply wear the knots as earned on my formal shirt, along with a jambo patch and Philmont arrowhead. Do still wear Eagle medal at Eagle courts, and religious awards on Scout Sunday.

What does this have to do with this board? Why is it even here?

On the NESA site, the latest "Eagletter" announces a variant knot with a silver border for life members of NESA. It will be available on June 1st; they stress that only one is worn, so that one or the current one. Some other interesting material in the current issue.

The comment regarding something occurs to change some participants reminded me of one of our youth in 79. He was a capable teenager with more than adequate physical skills; but he was really withdrawn much of the time, and often had to be prodded to get involved. We traveled for 3 and a half days getting to base, and he was cooped up with the others constantly, as our trip was a 1,000 miles. By mid way through something happened. We had stopped somewhere in Arizona or so, and this boy bought a cowboy hat. That hat became his persona, somehow; he actually liked the teasing name of "Tex" it generated. The rest of the trip it was like we had never known the boy. For whatever reason, when we returned, the hat went in a closet or something, and he reverted to the same introverted youth. All of the participants hoped we could find the "other" person again, but it never happened. Possibly connected to this anecdote is the fact that a few years later, he became psychologically challenged and eventually went into an institution for a period of time. Have been told they diagnosed and got him on regular meds, and that he now functions well again; but have thought that our "Tex" may have been a precursor of the breakdown that came a few years later. Not being a psychiatrist, I do not really know. Sad, but somehow also great story.

Preparation is everything. I did treks in 1979, 85 miles, and 1990, 65 miles. If we had not done shakedowns and conditioning, we would have been in serious trouble, even though we backpacked regularly in So.Cal. I still remember a couple of crews in base camps complaining about how hard it was; they admitted they had done nothing other than a couple of short weekenders; plus they had not acclimated themselves. Still, one group came off trail the same time we did, and they still said it was one of the best experiences ever. The youth leader told me though that he would try to make sure others from his troop and council better prepared ahead. Feet are absolutely a priority, and proper socks and liners are part of the critical element. If you are fortunate, you will not have to hike in too much rain, but likely will do some. Stream crossing can be tricky, and feet very well may get wet even with lots of caution. If there later in the season, you may be like us in 1990; we had rain 9 out of 10 days, half of them all day. Still remember coming down a trail in 70ish temps and 100% humidity; rain was running off my poncho and down my legs into my boots to join the sweat already there. Went through two changes of socks a day. Be prepared with moleskin and know how to recognize and treat blisters and related annoyances. Will always look back on these treks with fond memories. Only wish I had gone in the early 60's when I was an explorer. Not likely to go again, as have trouble with ankles and back now.

GW: yep, 3% multiplied by tens of thousands saves not just money, but huge amounts of "oil" and reduces pollution too. And the annual savings of $50 will allow me to buy more scout memorabilia paper that I really do not need (according to you know who). Of course, since my car gets 29 in town and 32 on the hwy, I save a bit more. And, since gas will be even higher soon, that too will effect my ability to add to my collection.

GW; Your car must be an exception. Numerous tests over many years have shown that speeds between 50 and 60 driven at a steady pace increase mileage by up to 3%. Of course the 80+ drivers also are weaving in and out and around on both sides, tailgating, and constantly riding brakes due to their excessive speed. That also contributes to poorer mileage.

As scouters, we are, or should be in the forefront of many of the environmental issues. Leave No Trace is certainly related to the environment, and many of the merit badges have direct connections, as does the Hornaday (though not just a scout award). Even if you may not agree totally with some of the more current suppositions regarding "global warming", many of the related issues are absolutely on target, no matter who looks at it. Many of these things have been around ever since man started building fires, or maybe longer, but the population increases are making them serious problems, where at one time, nature probably was able to overcome some of it (though possibly we just could not see the effects as easily due to lack of knowledge or tools). At EBOR's, a favorite question seems to relate to "thrifty", but in relation to other resources than monetary, especially the environment, specifically water and fuel. Using only what is needed, and not wasting; what a concept. Meanwhile, out on the freeway, people still are driving their gas guzzlers at 80+ mph. Go figure. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!

A good place to re-submit my thoughts on this requirement. I have been a SM for a very long time, and always had the ability to take personal vacation for summer camp. For me, with no kids of my own, it was not an issue. As for OA, I had become Brotherhood as a youth, so that only required proof and updating. Back a few years now, I had a group of 4 adults all come in from cubs, along with their sons. They became trained immediately, went through first aid courses, did outdoor specific training through high adventure courses, and then proceeded to Trail Boss training and completion. They went camping for two and three day trips regularly, soon compiling well over 30 days and nights, without any summer camp. But, when we put the most active one up for OA the year after his son went through, he was declined, even with a letter from the committee explaining why he had not done a long term. He had/has two daughters and limited vacation on his job and felt he needed to use that limited time for his family vacation. One other had a job without any paid vacation, so could not get time off for a whole week. He finally went to camp, but only when he lost his job and attended between that one and his new one. But, he was never put up, due to the limit of one per year which was given to the other because he had more camping and seniority in the troop. Now, the same year, I witnessed at least 3, perhaps more, adults tapped out and accepted from other units. Their camping, and contributions to outdoor activities was the bare minimum, and included that summer camp thing. None of them had anywhere near the training my ASM's had. My point is that there should possibly be alternate qualifications to cover this type of thing. If, the OA's purpose is to encourage camping of high quality within the unit and council, then which of these men is the better candidate? Possibly, there could be an alternative time requirement, such as "or 20 (bit more?) total days and nights, not including a long term; or simply a specific ability of a committee to put someone up with valid reasons, such as this incident. While he eventually was able to get the time for a summer camp, at the expense of his daughters not included, he came close to dropping out because he felt slighted and could not go to OA functions with his son. Thoughts?? Please be reminded that I am not saying anyone should be accepted, only that there are extenuating reasons why an adult could possibly never be able to go to a long term without affecting his family or employment negatively. We have one right now who runs a pool business. He has helped keep our outdoor program running on weekends and so on, he is busiest in summer and cannot take the time. It does not make any difference to him, but he probably is more deserving than some I have seen at Ordeals. Thanks.

"DARES"???? It should be a question in some form, as duty to God and being Reverent are part of the Oath and Law. A basic component of an EBOR is an examination of understanding and living by the Oath and Law. Now, if the query trespasses on the scout's spiritual belief, that is belittles a different viewpoint than the norm, or questions his possibly searching time in his development of faith, then it is out of line. But, it is a proper part of the board.

The Scout, While some of your points certainly have merit, they are no more absolutely accurate than that of Indian influence is inaccurate. Even the detractors appear to give some credence to the idea that the intermix of the two cultures had some influence, especially the relatively cooperative federation of tribes in the Northeast. Just because Europeans could not read the Iroquois language until later, does not mean they did not understand some of the society's concepts. How much effect that might have had will never really be proven. Archeologists and anthropologists continue to find indicators of past very advanced societies and cultures in the midwest, such as the "Mound People". In the "New World", many of the established cultures were well on the way to evolving to even greater discovery. They also appear to have had fewer diseases; many were definitely more hygenic than our "advanced" European forefathers. On the west coast, the scientists continue to find indications of Pacific islanders possibly landing on the shores of the Americas; and the coastal tribes have been proven to have sailed huge distances along the coast and to the off shore islands. While human sacrifice occurred in some instances, it did not approach the levels of cruelty and torture going on in Europe in the same period. That is one of the reasons that the Incas and Mayans were vanquished by the superior weapons of the Spanish; they had no concept of the type of cruelty and greed that the Spanish brought. And, as earlier noted, the diseases also devastated them. As far as I know, the civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotania, both in Africa, rivaled the Greeks and Romans. In fact, some things that made the Greeks and Romans so successful were borrowed from these earlier cultures. Again, archeologists have found strong indicators that some of the success of those North African cultures were influenced by peoples from farther south on the continent. This debate, though, has nothing to do with Scouting, and will never be settled to the satisfaction of all. So, I will drop it at this point. (This message has been edited by skeptic)

The Scout, Sorry, but to me it seemed you were suggesting the Chinese and others were somehow lesser people because they came here for menial jobs. Perhaps I misunderstood the tone. Indians, or N.A.'s if you choose, were often very advanced. Actually, some of our own government design came from the example of the Iroguois Confederacy. If Tecumseh had moved a bit quicker, he and his confederacy might very well have driven the whites back into the sea. In the Southwest, the Hopi and some of the other cliff dwelling cultures were extremely well versed in advanced farming and architechtural devices. And, of course if you go down into Central America, you have the Aztec and Toltec civilizations. Some of the Pacific coast tribes also were very advanced, especially in boating and hunting skills. When the Spanish introduced the Indians to the horse and guns, they very quickly became experts, especially with the horses. If they had not been decimated by European disease and advanced weaponry early on, the whole outcome might very well have been different. Of course, we all know that there were a number of very advanced cultures in Africa too during the colonial period. Unfortuneately, some preyed on weaker, less advanced tribes and sold them into slavery to the Europeans. Then, we have the Chinese; they just happen to come from the oldest continuing civilization and one that was responsible for many very early discoveries that middle age Europeans took back to their countries and used to become dominent.

TheScout: Hopefully you are not teaching what you infer about Asians, Native Americans, and so on to your charges. If so, shame on you. Just because certain races were brought here as laborers, slaves, or were overrun and worn down does not detract from the fact that they have contributed greatly to the country's development. And, as they have slowly been allowed to evolve into more a part of the total population, their contributions have also increased. Intellectually, the Asians are embarrassing the Anglo-European children today. They work harder, and continue to contribute more. And much of the Native American culture is working assiduously to improve themselves (yes, the casinos are part of this), but more importantly to trying to find their roots again, which included respect for the land and its animals, as well as generally living in peace with their surroundings and other tribes. Don't forget that if it was not for the Native Americans on the east coast when the Europeans first came, the earliest settlers would likely have died.

The dam has been reclassified by a government agency, resulting in the required repairs/adjustments. Since they did, what is wrong with the cost being subsidized by the government. Another question would be how does the dam effect public useage of the waterway on which it is built? Does it allow public benefit downstream, or act as a cog in flood control? So, there are a number of unknowns from the original post. Certainly, if the dam only serves the camp, then it is pretty questionable, though the issue has arisen due to the government. If their decision is based on safety to the general public, then it also is a public work. And if it is part of a larger system on the stream, and the benefit to the camp is a by product, then it is completely different.

Having just read the entire book, I had to go back and review the comments on the board. Cannot help but wonder how many of the posters have actually read the book. While you may not agree with his contention, or much of the other material, he actually does a pretty fair job with his subject. But most of the comments on the board would indicate that these individuals have done nothing more than read a couple reviews from their favorite bloggers or partisan critics. And he does quote a number of prominent Eagle Scouts throughout, including Dukakis, who one poster listed as someone he should have spoken to. There are some well footnoted points that lend a lot of verity to his premise. Read it; some things will give you pause. Of course, much of it will give those who have little positive to say about BSA more ammunition for their sarcasm and derogatory statements.

But, since BSA "is" a private organization, someone who wants to join, but disagrees with BSA's rules, has no grounds to complain. They simply do not have to join. How hard is that to understand? Allowing BSA or other private, possibly religious organizations, to run community based programs for the government, when they can do it the best and most economically, is not supporting them with tax money; rather it is using tax money in a responsible and rational way for the better good. If the majority could decide that government should not use their taxes to support anything with which they disagreed, and the courts agreed, then we would soon have very little left, as just about everyone sees things their tax money is used for with which they have reservations or completely disagree.

OOPs; awfully think skin all of a sudden!! BSA does not denegrate (sic) atheists, they simply say they are not individuals with whom they choose to associate within their own organization. Show me anywhere it says atheists or Gays are not to be allowed to live their lives as they choose, other than when their choice trespasses on the rights of others. I know of no scouters who would encourage scouts to mistreat or denigrate atheists or Gays, or for that matter even discuss it with the scouts unless absolutely forced. And then, they simply would indicate that those choices are not the choices of BSA. Again, how does that do you ANY harm, except to your ego?

Well Merlyn, the "me" with which I am associated is a majority of the population. And our actions do no actual harm to your "me", but your actions take productive youth programs away, or make them more difficult to administer with higher costs. Please explain again how forcing these issues helps anyone in a truely constructive manner for society! Maybe all this effort put into attacking worthwhile activities could be better used to do something actually beneficial to the community at large.

Did not say that; said that the stream was vandalized by egocentric individuals who choose to redirect the course to suit themselves, even if it is not to the best interests of the landscape through which the stream flows. Sort of like the landowner who dams up the stream on his land so that the majority of the neighbors downstream can no longer benefit from its resource. But it is his "right". And if the neighbors somehow alter something to try to reach a compromise, like splitting the stream above, he sues them. And so the majority of the farmers downstream no longer can grow their crops, and the stream habitat is irrevocably damaged. But it is still his "right", so why should he care? Again, I have difficulty understanding why a simple belief or symbol should have any effect on the welfare of these challengers. I can only think that they must have very little self esteem if they are so easily damged. Of course that is because they live in a world of "me", the only person that matters.