skeptic

When we refer to grade issues, can you be more specific? While getting all A's or A's and B's is commendable, getting C's is not the end of the world, especially if the average is higher. And frankly, even a D, if the boy tried but simply did not get it is not a reason to panic. Part of the problem with many of our youth is this thing called grade inflation, or the idea that average is bad. All this does is put more pressure on many, to the point where they hit a mental wall. Sometimes, maturity will mend it all. While I was in the top of my class with what was then called college prep, I really did not do overly well my last two years, especially in math and science; and my first two years of college at a community college I managed only a 2.01 GPA. After a year working and four in the service I went back and made the dean's list and eventually got my teaching credential in California with close to a 4.0. Do what you can to encourage the scout to "do his best". But as noted by others, try not to add more pressure. We are only seeing this from your description, so our comments should be taken in that perspective. Good luck.

Found this piece in the Los Angeles Times to be interesting and bit humorous. I particularly liked the ending comments; " giving this new version of PC the respect it deserves warrants a whole new term. So what have we got? Insatiable aggrievedness? Compulsive didacticism? Sanctimonious kneejerkery? Any of those would beat political correctness. Because PC's been beat." http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...03-column.html

With the ongoing drum beat about various generational groups, I continue to feel left out. I thought maybe I was missing something, but still have not found "my" generation to have a spot on the generational time line. Speaking with a gentleman over breakfast yesterday, born a year before me in 1943, he has noted the same thing. The boomers are always noted as starting in 1946 after the wars, and there is another group, the greatest generation that covers those up through 1940 or so who mostly fought in the war or contributed somehow. Those of us born from 1941-1945 seem to have simply been ignored. Should I be offended; especially in this day of taking offense at any tiny perceived slight? All of us had parents that went through the entire depression and war years, and grandparents that likely did also, but also remembered the previous century and WWI etc. We learned to be thrifty with things in general, not to spend money we did not have, respect adults, period, that school was important and you best not get in trouble there, that personal integrity was a virtue and hard work got you a better place in life, that the indigent more often than not needed a hand up, that manners were reflective of your upbringing, and lots of other things that seem to have lost traction or gone away almost entirely. Oh, and Boy Scouts for the most part were perceived as a benefit to the community, even if you were not involved directly, and they were respected for their efforts on behalf of community and country.

Not long after I became a SM, I had similar problems at times, and it was very frustrating. That was in the late 70's. I was on visit to my parents and asked my dad about it, as he had been involved with my brother and me in the 50's and early 60's. He just laughed and said that it was a problem back then too. Some people simply are not willing to go outside their personal focus unless seriously prodded. And, they get away with it because we do not make it obvious we need them to help. Of course, there are a few that are simply takers, and you will be lucky to have their kids regularly; and those often are the scouts that are most in need of direction in their lives. Still, if you do not ask directly, many will assume; and you know the story about that word.

Years ago we rode bikes up the coast to Summerland just the other side of Carpenteria. About a 20 something mile ride. One of my senior scouts, who at the time was about 18 and either just starting college at USC or finishing high school, was the leader, since he had done the ride a few times. I was only vaguely familiar with the area, though I did know somewhere nearby was a secretive small beach with "options". Anyway, we stopped along the bluff, and the young man pointed out the trail down to the beach and suggested we go down. Another adult stayed with most of the boys and a few of us climbed down. We only walked about fifty yards around a point when I realized where we were. As I made us hastily retreat, the young man is hysterical. Worse, I hear voices on the bluff; a couple of the younger boys had found a top side view and were hollering something to the effect of "turn over" as the other adult up there is trying to get them away. Looking back of course it is pretty funny. But I learned another lesson. "Make sure you know where you are going in detail, and do not trust a teenager's judgment." On the other hand, the only people there were probably well over fifty, or very weathered younger ones. Fortunately, I did not have any overly upset parents on return. Of course, that was in the early 80's before hyper sensitivity was the vogue.

Hey M'; can you please give us a rest from your excessive pride in causing issues with BSA and public schools. We have heard this over and over for way too long. You certainly are not impressing anyone, only making yourself seem vindictive and spiteful. Of course, I know you could really care less; but it is simply tiresome.

If our "purpose" in life is to do everything in our power to denigrate those with whom we disagree, and feel that ONLY our beliefs and thoughts have validity, then in reality, "we have no purpose, only an existance".

Ah yes, yester-year, when vanity and fear were seldom an issue and all males shared facilities most places and nobody seemed worse for wear. Kids took real showers in school too; and they were group stalls. Can you imagine?

I completely do not understand the continued bigotry towards the LDS in Scouting, and outside of it. But, if all scouts are brothers, then those that have an issue with LDS units and their members are not very good scouts and scouters. So they often go home on Saturday at council and district events. So they have some unfamiliar program elements. Why is that an issue outside of those in those units? As LeCastor says, it is shallow. And often, the perceived problems are built on things that happened years ago. Locally, our LDS groups have become much more involved, as they have an umbrella of units so to speak in districts, so the individual Stake units can act together for many activities. My understanding is that this comes from higher up, as they have realized the drawbacks of units being too small. Whatever, just because the approach is different does not make it any less Scouting connected.

" The Klan was essentially a home-grown terrorist organization. I suspect we could name others as well if we wanted " I consider gangs that prey on neighborhoods as home grown terrorists; and I do not understand why we do not respond to them the same way we do to those from the outside.

While I understand that this is theoretically a place to discuss political and religious issues, but I have always thought it was still a Scouting related board. If that is the case, then at least a modicum of adherance to tenets of Scouting would apply, The test would be whether or not you would wish to expose your scouts or other young people to what is said. If not, then it probably does not belong here. There are other places where crude, vitriolic, and hateful language can be aired. One would hope this is not one of them. Just my personal opiniion, but I would think that most regular readers and posters here would agree there ARE limits, even on this specific forum.

I'm concentrating on delivering program to my units. Great response.

Jason; it is something volunteers would do. Scouting IS a volunteer run organization in its basic form, and always has been. Any well run unit or even council is dominated by strong, giving, volunteers who push the success with their time and often major resources. The less involved the pro's are in the important program elements, the better in most cases.

Review individuals for Eagles do not have to Eagles themselves, and the board does not have to be made up only registered scouters. Matter of fact, it is often recommended that at least part of the board be specifically non-scouters. Am also not certain that the "board" which you described would even be proper. [h=3]8.0.0.3 Composition of the Board of Review[/h] A board of review must consist of no fewer than three members and no more than six, all of whom must be at least 21 years of age. For further specifications, see"Particulars for Tenderfoot Through Life Ranks (or Palms),"8.0.2.0, and "Particulars for the Eagle Scout Rank,"8.0.3.0. Unit leaders and assistants shall not serve on aboard of review for a Scout in their own unit. Parents or guardians shall not serve on a board for their son. The candidate or his parent(s) or guardian(s) shall have no part in selecting any board of review members. Based on the above, I would think the process was not followed, and it should have been negated by the council, and redone.

I still am trying to figure that out!

Since we are supposed to be apolitical within the unit, probably would not do that here.

So, let me get this straight. Over the past year or two we have had regular rants and such about how National does not support and encourage "boy led". Now, when they have published in Scouting an article doing just that, we continue to complain. Granted, there is room for clarification and fine tuning, using some of the material earlier developed by B.P. and GBB; but, just the fact that the idea of "boy led" is being nationally recommended should be celebrated. Maybe we need a bit of instruction on taking the positive and making it grow, rather than finding the proverbial "half empty" glass. Just a thought.

So here is what the earliest scouts dealt with; so we really do not compare apples to apples. Eldred, and a few others did have to go to New York for their board, and supposedly, at least Eldred had Beard, Seton, and West as his interviewers. The BSA comes into existence. For the first few months, the highest rank is First Class. [h=2]1911 Eagle Requirements[/h] The BSA adds three higher ranks for earning merit badges beyond First Class: Life, Star, and Eagle (Star was switched before Life in 1924, apparently because the five points of the Star could symbolize the five merit badges required for the rank). Neither Life nor Star is required for Eagle (a Scouting magazine article [May-June 2003] indicated that 8 of the first 9 Eagle Scouts [including the BSA's first Eagle] did not earn either Life or Star ranks).The 1911 Scout Handbook refers to Eagle Scout as "the highest scout merit badge" rather than a rank. Earn First Class Earn any 21 merit badges 1912â€â€Arthur Eldred becomes the first Eagle Scout. [h=2]1914 Eagle Requirements[/h] [created an Eagle required list of 11 badges by adding 6 badges to the 5 formerly required for Life] Earn First Class Earn 21 merit badges, including the following 11: First Aid Physical Development Lifesaving Personal Health Public Health Cooking Camping Bird Study Pathfinding Pioneering Athletics

Would agree we need a stronger skill emphasis in the first three ranks, including some things that push the scout far harder than any we now have. That would include NOT allowing almost automatic optional stuff for those who claim emotional reasons not to meet swimming minimums. The only ones getting that option should be ones with true physical reasons, or exceptional psychological ones (which would likely limit them in other areas too). But keep the merit badges, especially those that give them skills no longer taught in school, like Personal Management. Could possibly combine the citizenships again into some variation on the level of the old Civics badge. A couple of approaches from the past might be: Allow actual "spot" checks of two or three (at the most) requirements, varied from board to board; and put the boards of review back into the hands of the boy leaders through First Class, with the adult (silent unless absolutely needed) observer. Not only would that strengthen the skill levels due to peer pressure, but it also would improve the leadership growth. I know for me, the challenge of signalling was a really hard, but it made surely was good for me. At tenderfoot back then, we needed to know seven knots, and that was not just tie them once and say good boy. We had to do them all correctly two times running one week, then come back and do the same thing the next. Took me months to finally make the goal, but I did it, and felt really good. Our biggest challenge, from where I sit after decades of adult leadership, is to keep the parents at bay and to not let scouts slip by just because they tried. We do them no favors by allowing parental excuses, scout excuses, or emotional responses to sway us. Just my opinion of course.

It is interesting to note that many of the Eagles noted in various synopses of those that succeeded well above the average reached that level before 14. Now we really cannot count the first couple due to the inconsistent requirements, but they both were 13 (not absoltuely sure about the second one, but was young), and you had to be 12 to even join. That would indicate that the spark to earn Eagle is just part of the broader personality likely to surpass the norm in society, and hopefully contribute in a positive way. Of course we also have a few in that category we prefer to not admit to, as occasionally is brought to our attention. On the other hand, most of my Eagles that have shown above average contributions so far, were the the last minute ones for the most part; they were so busy with other things that they struggled to fit it all in, but gradutated in the top 2% of their high school classes and were in student government, church, and sports too. So, while I do not push them to get there too soon, I do try to encourage them to learn. If they get there sooner, great; but it is mostly their choice.

Yep; I'm with you on this on Calico.

Does not compute.

Top 10 Logical Fallacies in Politics (in no particular order) 1. Ignoratio elenchi = rebuttal failing to address the central argument 2. Argumentum ad hominum = attack the man not the argument 3. Straw man argument = misrepresenting opponent’s position 4. Slippery slope = if one small step is taken, it will inevitably lead to the extreme 5. Special pleading = a theory which cannot be disproved therefore is true (a South Park favorite) 6. Single cause = an intellectual shortcut 7. Appeal to motive/association = motive somehow negates truth 8. Argumentum ad populum = if the majority holds a certain belief, it must be true 9. Argumentum ad mentum = appealing to fears, insecurities, or paranoia 10. Argumentum ad nauseam = if it is repeated often enough, people will believe it (but that doesn’t make it true)

I wore them on occasion in the seventies; also had one as an explorer in the early sixties. Have half a dozen various ties in my collection. Besides green, there was blue and brown, as well as the newer versions with designs, such as Eagles. The earlier ones are all narrow.

It surprises me how negative some comments are about this process. Yes, a large percentage of the letters received are predictably bland and supportive. But, a small percentage can and occasionally do shed light on an aspect of the candidate that might never have been seen otherwise. Much depends on how the letter writer approaches this request. Letters of reference are still often required in job applications and certainly when applying for many scholarships and other special placement activities such as accompanying a scientific group as a youth member on a project, or participating in something like Boy's or Girl's State programs. So why should not references be important to the Eagle process? In our council the scoutmaster is expected to write a recommendation as well. Some would say that is redundant, but simply approving an applicant does not shed much light on the applicant's interactions within the unit, which is really what the reason is for that request. Unfortunately, few leaders say anything other than yes, he is a great scout and nice kid. Again though, on occasion something comes up from one that is beneficial to the review. The best thing to come out of parental letters I have experienced in the reviews on which I have sat are behind the scene reflections on how well the scout lives up to the law and oath on the family level, and occasionally clarifying the family dynamic we seldom really see. And, at least for me, who bacame an Eagle before projects were a part, references were truly important when community leaders, who often barely knew the candidate, sat on the review. Would have to go back and look at Star and Life back then, but I remember being asked to submit letters for those ranks as well. We often hear the comment that the Eagle board is sort of like their first job interview. And, depending on the type of job, references often are asked for, and even letters if the job offerer chooses that avenue rather than calls. While seldom would a letter disqualify a candidate, it is an important part of the learning process, which is part of the reason scouting exists.JMHO of course based on 40 years or so of adult activity.