skeptic

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.

Perhaps they actually scouted the rapids using maps that were currently established; but they did not expect to have the course vandalized by egocentric forces undermining the banks and throwing in man-made boulders.

"Gays and Lesbians want a "license to do whatever they choose, even at the expense of the majority". Seriously, I'm questioning what this statement means?" It means they want to force society as a whole to adhere to their beliefs and dictate to the government of "all the people" what the government should be allowed to do or not do, or with whom they should interact for the overall benefit of the community. It does not matter that the choice by government entities to use certain organizations for some types of activities makes total sense due to the resources or overall capability of the organization. If they have even the remotest connection to ideas that they feel are discriminatory, even if those ideas do not effect the actual function for which they were chosen, then they should not be allowed. How does this harm them in the first place; and secondly, why should they their beliefs or rights be greater than those of the others? With this rationale, a government entity could hire a contractor to build a fence. The contractor is the best choice, but then they find out a couple of his workers believe Gays are not someone with whom they can work directly because it is against their religious precepts. There are no Gays involved in the project, but the city should still fire the contractor given this rationalization. O.G.E.; Even if National were to make the rational decision to put the choices into the CO's hands, it would not stop the attacks. That would obviously not be good enough, just as a separate, associated LFL is not acceptable. You know that as well as I do. Surely that is the route to which National needs to evolve; and I suspect it eventually will happen. But, there will still be that little thing about a higher power and traditional values as espoused by the Oath and Law which somehow makes BSA a paria. Only total capitulation will satisfy them.

Merlyn; obviously you have no idea how seriously strapped almost every community government is in California. And, sorry, LL specifically raises money for "legal" issues and suits for their "small" segment of the society. They just received a donation of over 1 million dollars a year for 8 years from one donor. And, there are a great many similar donors to LL and others that bring these types of action. Every community challenged by LL, ACLU, and other similar "legal" entities must defend themselves with taxpayer money. I continue to wonder why you never answer the actual question or challenge in most cases. Perhaps it has something to do with not having any answer that makes sense. LGBT individuals, in my opinion, should be given reasonable and legitimate protections and have their rights upheld. But they want a license to do whatever they choose, even at the expense of the majority. Say that is not true, but if you do, then you are blind.

I want to know what LL is doing to make life better for the majority of the population. It is wonderful that they want to support and make life easier for their small percentage of the populace. But, attacking organizations that do far more, just because they don't like them is the worst kind of reverse descrimination. How can these sleep at night? Unfortuneately, they can waste money in any way they wish, as they have no restrictions on their legal funds. Frivolous and questionable suits do not require public money, but those they sue have only limited resources and that is what they count on.

Interesting comment Cheerful Eagle: "If you wanted to use Revolutionary War heros (and appealing to military heros has its own pitfalls), I think you'd want to be careful to build an appreciation of that into the program throughout the year. Otherwise, the boys just wouldn't have the internal script to be a part of the make-believe." It is unfortunate that you may be right, as there definitely seems to be a really sad lack of knowledge about even basic history or the country among not only the children of today, but their parents. When I was that age, there were many more movies and early TV programs that featured such subjects. Also, a lot of the juvenile literature was fact based historical fiction, and often biographies of early notables in the development of our country. I can remember devouring stories on the building of the Erie and Panama canals, frontier development, revolutionary heroics, and of course the myriad mountain man and sod-buster stories. Even the comics featured these subjects. On Tuesday evening, I sat on an Eagle board of review for an 18 year old. He wants to be a historian, and his thoughtful answers reflected his having given serious comparative thought to some current issues. It was refreshing, especially when he brought up the idea that "looking back" helps us to avoid similar mistakes. A simple premise for some of us, but one that seems to me to have been forgotten, especially by many of our esteemed leaders and captains of business. JMHO

"How do the switchbacks hold up". With a belt or suspenders. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/2781/The_Black_Boy_Scout_a_history___ This link will give those interested a fairly good picture of Black Scouts in the history of BSA, though only a snapshot. I have run across a number of interesting items in old scouting material that discuss the "Negro Scout" and so on. They have been part of the program from the outset it appears; but as noted, it has taken decades to find them more or less on the same plane as anglos. Enjoy.

While punching might not be the best suggestion in many instances, especially in school. standing up to the bully is very important at some point. What really bothers me in some instances of this in school, and probably other places, even scouts, is that too often the instigator is not the one to get caught. Or in some cases, the one being bullied finally stands up for him or herself, but is expelled or punished at the same level as the one really responsible. Over-reaction by adults is just as harmful as no reaction. Another element that is too often the case is that the scout or boy who is being bullied often brings it on himeself by saying or doing things regularly that simply annoy others in some manner. When this is done simply due to immaturity or need for attention, it still is not understood very well by peers; sometimes even we, as adults, may not initially pick up on it. But, to be fair, boys who are teased and ignored, and girls too I suspect, very often continue to repeat the same behaviour that made them the butt of the others to start with. Still, the requirements are useful in our current society. Whether they really do much good, as Beavah has said, will only be seen over time. Much of the problem starts, like most, in the home. Today, when parental supervision is so sorely lacking, sibling issues often export themselves to school, scouts, and other places. Media continues to glamorize questionable character in sports and entertainment, and politicians publicly insult and denigrate each other. We reap what we sow.

"Which ACLU suits would most likely lose? What cases are you talking about?" asks Merlyn. Most likely all the ones brought against local government entities protesting the symbol of the cross when it has been part of the entity's history from the outset. But taking it through all the appeals processes and so on makes it too expensive to fight. Believe it or don't, but religious symbols that are of historical nature would and should be allowed to remain, and the highest court probably would rule as such. In the case of the Ventura cross, the so called damaged party lived almost thirty miles away. The city council publicly admitted that it was the desire of the huge majority of the city that it be defended, but they did not have funds to carry through all the years of litigation the ACLU promised. And, of course, these are the tactics they use in many of their suits, knowing full well they can make it almost impossible for the city or county economically. And each time they go find another unknown threat to defend, often bringing litigants with seriously questionable standing. An example is the Balboa Park suit; the people supposedly harmed somehow, never even attempted to use the facilities. Worse, Napolean Jones, the judge who made the decision refused to accept the U.S. Department of Justice's statement of support. I know Merlyn, only those who agree with these tactics have any standing with you, and they can do no wrong, and you will let me know how ignorant those of us are that believe your rights stop when they trespass on ours.

The point is that if the ACLU would be far less likely to challenge many things they do, BSA and otherwise, if they knew that they would have to pay should they lose. And many of the suits threatened would most likely have lost, but the government or other entity would be required to spend huge sums to defend out of their own pockets, money that under current law would not be repaid if they won. San Diego initially stood with the scouts, but when the ACLU made it clear how much it might cost them in defense, they chose to back down and pay them almost a million dollars. The city of Ventura has a cross above the city; the city was founded by Father Serra in 1789, and a cross of some sort has been there ever since. But the city sold the property to a private entity in order to avoid the cost of a lawsuit. The cross on the seal of L.A. was so small you barely could see it unless it was reproduced in a large size; but the cost of fighting it, even though it represented part of the history of the city, was too high. It is the same thing as the ambulance chasers, scam auto accident people, and fake department store injury threats. I worked in retail as a manager for over 20 years. I actually witnessed, and would have testified for the store, a woman purposely fall over a furniture cart and immediately start screaming how badly hurt she was. Actually, she barely scratched herself, but the store would rather pay a settlement than the cost of litigation. If we had the ability to turn the cost back on the frivolous suer, most would not happen. And it surely could still allow legitimate suits to be brought without high risk to the attorney and his client.

How many suits would the ACLU be filing if we changed our court system to make them liable for the costs of themselves and the organization sued if they lost the suit? That is why they would not survive with their tactics in most areas of the world.

Certainly there is a certain amount of reasonable expectation here as far as setting example goes. I know that I fall into the category noted, and am frustrated at times about not seeming to be able to make myself lose. What is more frustrating is that I actually eat less than at one time. In our council and my district, there are many similar to me. But, the younger scouters appear to be mostly fairly fit and healthy; a few are actually above average runners or athletes of varous sorts. There are two realities with me. One is genetics; three doctors have point blank told me that my metabolism is such that as I grow older, it will slow down. So, even if I eat less, I also burn fewer calories even with the same levels of activity. On the other hand, I have had various injuries to muscles, joints, and ligaments starting in my teens. Now, as I have gotten older, it is much more mentally difficult to do some types of activity, due to pain from age related deterioration. Last year, I finally decided that longer hikes were a thing of the past. Always a plodder who would just keep going, it is now much harder, and mentally, I have trouble walking through it like I once did. Recovery was quick 20 years ago, and I would be day hiking to the nearest ridge or peak; now I just want to sit, observe, and relax. Harder to get up in the mornings too. Still, last summer I did my 23rd official scout camp mile swim, hope to do number 24 this summer. But it takes me over an hour now. At over 60 though, some elements that drove me before no longer really matter. I do not particularly worry about how I appear to the opposite gender, as she and I are comfortable with each other, and rarely judgemental; this happens often it seems beyond 50. I don't smoke, and never have; I seldom drink, and even in my younger years, rarely drank to excess, and never when I was underage; I take cholesterol meds and manage to keep it around 200 or a bit under most of the time. Still, I could do better. And, if I did, I might again be able to play one on one for more than two minutes. Ultimately, I must decide for myself. Meanwhile, I still can encourage the scouts to do whatever they can to live up to the physically fit element, reminding them that at their age, I was, but that now I have 50+ years on them.