skeptic

The ballot results on this are particularly telling, in that we have such a poor level of actual participation. Has to make you wonder where that other 60% or so would come down on the issue if they exercised their franchise. But, as we have been told numerous times here; the voice of the majority must take a back seat to that of the minority when it differs from those in charge or with powerful agendas. Of course, what do I know?(This message has been edited by skeptic)

One of the Eagles we all have been most proud to have on our list of accomplished scouters. Might wonder if we should move this to a different forum, as it dos not seem to fit here, at least to me.

Actually, he planned at least a couple, and is a patrol leader now. The unit he is with is one of the most active outdoor troops in the council and is 85 years old. They have as many as 4 summer options, including high adventure as one, either a National base or Sierras, though they have done some in Oregon and Utah. Definitely not a do the merit badge at troop meeting troop, nor LDS. But, it really does not matter. You are making value judgments without any real knowledge of the boy other than what little I have noted. Frankly, I am disappointed in your responses in this thread, as they are really not fair to the scout. I fully understand your opinion on leadership and age, and even concur in many instances, as I have met numbers of the shallow young higher ranking scouts, and they are becoming more common. This one does not appear to be in that category. So, I will refrain from any more discussion on this, as it has become tedious.

Let's clarify. The young man was not in my troop, I simply sat on his board. He from one of the largest troops in the county who does have many Eagles, most over 16, and quite a few under the wire. This young man came in with the younger age allowed, prior to 11. He has been on over 50 nights of camping, about a quarter backpacks over 5 miles. He has never missed a meeting, and barely any other activities. One of his stated goals was to help others coming up, including his 9 year old brother who is still in cubs. The parents are not helicopter; he made the goal and accomplished it. He also has earned two of the four Catholic religious awards and is active in the church. Still, we will see. There are exceptions to everything, and this one "seems" to be one. But, please, enough nonsense. He met the requirements, and is working on improving his leadership by attending leadership shops in school, as well as scouts.

None of the above if they are made to be a focus to the youth directly. These are private matters, and therefore should be kept that way as well as possible. Once it becomes a "disruption (there's that word again)", it needs to be addressed. And sometimes, addressing it will lead to upset people, accusations, and possibly even the destruction of the unit. So, if is better to try and keep these life decisions as private as possible. At least that is how we try to work in our unit, and those others in our area with which I am familiar. In the many years I have been with the unit, we have had maybe a half dozen serious incidents that required various levels of committee and CO handling, IN PRIVATE. And only two had anything to do with sexuality; the others were related to abuse (verbal or physical, one being a parent), alcohol and drugs. We once also had to discuss with a mother the repercussions apparent to her son from a very nasty divorce; fortunately, she worked things out with the ex and made sure it was kept from the unit after that. None of these things are ever easy. And we often second guess ourselves later. Ultimately, it seems to me we did the right thing in most cases. But it did have negative impacts in a couple on the youth who were NOT to blame in that they were jerked from scouts. It is interesting though how often these things that are adult issues in the youth environment bring surprisingly strong bonding by the boys around the one whose parent is an embarrassment or worse.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Beavah; remember, the political rabble-rousers already got to the Girl Scouts, so why should they annoy them by pushing for girls in BSA? Many of the legal cases revolve around atheist issues rather than (directly) Gay issues, due to the Dale decision. But, atheists have yet to mount the long term, extensive campaign that Gay rights groups have over the past couple of decades. Of course, other than the name, having girls at ALL levels would not really be a problem anyway, other than assuring additional leadership needs were met and allowing units option of one or both, on the "local option" plan. For me, you can NEVER separate a generic belief in a spiritual entity or power beyond ourselves, whether you call it God, god, something else. That is an absolute cornerstone of Scouting, from my perspective. That is NOT saying atheists are bad people necessarily, simply that their beliefs, or lack thereof, do not fit the basic program parameters. We have beat the "changing the program to fit me" idea has been beat to death already, even though some here and elsewhere seem unable to grasp the ill-logic of that. Simply my personal views and observations. Those few who seem inclined to diss anyone with whom they disagree, please simply leave it, as I already know how you feel, and you will not change my opinion with irrational or hyper-sensitive comments. Let us simply disagree and get on with it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443989204577603341710975650.html?google_editors_picks=true This was recommended to me by one of my former scouts who is now a Lt. Col in the Army. It sort of fits with the current back and forth here. Make sure you get the "whole" link, as often the highlighted ones leave some off for some reason. Did find it interesting.

I too have seen some of similar age that never met the apparent promise. This one struck me as not being like that. And, being as he plans on attending the tech high school in town if possible, or the Catholic school otherwise, as well as playing water polo, things could change. But only time will tell.

Well, now you people are simply reaching to the point of foolishness. There is a difference between simply living your life within the view of others and making it a public issue. If you cannot see that, then you are not as bright as you seem to think. As far as the specific case, and a number of similar ones, they have obviously been prompted by the political arm of the Gay movement to keep the controversy regularly in view. He did not have to make this decision and immediately go to a reporter. The exec in So Cal did not have to come out and immediately bring in the reporters. The Gay rights groups have actually published their plans, as has been linked in these forums; and they have done an admirable job of keeping the pressure on. And because they do this, they continue to affect the youth and leaders who really do not care about any of it, but simply want to run their units and have fun. The groups most in the forefront of all this could care less about the actual BSA. They simply want to force changes to a group that they mostly do not even want to be part of, simply for a political cause. And, their methods, especially accusing the scouts of teaching hate and suggesting they actively look to keep boys or adults out is nonsense. We continue to come back to the fact that being a Scout, or and Elk, or a member of Toastmasters, or many other groups is a choice. Hopefully National will evolve soon, or simply return to what was in place before the Gay rights groups took on the issue for whatever reason, which was local option with the CO approving the leaders. That is why it did not really cause problems until it somehow became the cause celebre of the ACLU and other PC proponents and forced National to make what most of us agree now was a poor decision on how to respond. As I have said before, I just hope that you do not spread these attitudes to the youth in the program. I will now try and not let these things push my buttons for a while, but there really is NO reasoning with many here. There is simply no middle ground.

First of all Lisa, I am a proponent of "local option" as well. But, I am really skeptical of the way these things are orchestrated by the political arm of the Gay rights movement. It does far more harm than good to local units, as we then have to deal with the idiots that do not understand we simply do not discuss it with scouts. A conspiracy? No, I think it is a politically oriented attack that is not necessary or constructive. He chose, supposedly to "come out" publicly; then he feels the need to tell the world how mistreated he is. Sorry, but currently that is the exact thing that would happen; it is not like it should be a surprise. It is much like the similar "coming out" of a Santa Barbara executive a few years back. It was orchestrated to fit into the agenda of the local groups. BSA did not make it a public thing; he did by his own admission. It is the continued politicizing of the issue that annoys me; because their goal has little or nothing to do with the best interests of the units or the members thereof. This is how I see it. I do not hate Gays; I do not discuss the life styles of adults with the scouts; I do not try to determine if a scout may be struggling with the issue of sexuality. These are not part of the program; they are personal things that should remain personal and within the families. Certainly they should not be used as political clubs to the detriment of the scout members. The problem with these kind of stories, and the slant the press uses, is that a few ultra radical individuals feel the need to verbally, and even occasionally physically attack the youth and that is unacceptable. And please do not tell me I am making this up; I have seen it happen personally more than once. No one says people do not have a right to their own opinions. But the rights go both ways. JMO of course.

Since I tend to be a "skeptic", I find it interesting how once again we conveniently have one of these supposedly "pick on the Gay leader" stories, just in time to make sure it does not lose visibility. Those that say the Gay activists are not actively orchestrating this seem to me to be naive or blind. But, then I am skeptical anyway, so perhaps I am a victim of misperception.

Unless he is a very good con, he was not forced by any means. Plans on adding palms, working with troop, joining attached Venturing crew when old enough, and wants to work on camp staffs. So, appears the second is not a problem either. Of course, since also is a water polo player and swimmer, as well as involved in his student government while 4.0 student, high school could alter his views and time availability. We will see.

Just returned from sitting on an Eagle board for a young man just starting 8th grade tomorrow who turns 13 on Wednesday. For those going on about young Eagles, I guarantee you this young man more than fits the role of Eagle. He is the sort of "young" man or "boy" man that proves the rule so to speak. Better spoken, better prepared, and simply all around exceptional example of what we hope a scout will become by the time they reach Eagle, superior to many much older whose boards I have sat. Gives you hope each time you do one of these boards, but especially when you have one so young with such obvious promise.

"That makes no sense; the plaintiffs aren't controlling access to public property and excluding the BSA, the BSA is excluding the plaintiffs." Maybe you should get the facts straight. The plaintiffs were never denied access, as they chose to not even try because they might be exposed to some small indication of religion, according to them. Apparently, having to book use through the scout office was too much contact with a supposedly "religious organization". But, since apparently atheism is also, according to the ruling you quoted, then they really do not have much on which to base their argument, even if you discount the fact they never even attempted to book it, nor were actually turned down. Your court.

"No change there; the city leased public land that gives some people inferior access based on religion, sexual orientation, and age+sex." But, if the plaintiff, peripherally is also religious, then what does that do to their complaint in the first place? Just seems to me that it considerably weakens their claims of discrimination by a religious group, as they too could be judged as discriminating against the group. I realize that this is a stretch, but the decision already made by Judge Jones is pretty much stretched to the max as well, or so it seems to me.

"Under US law, discriminating against atheists (because they're atheists) is religious discrimination. Read Torcaso, read Welsh v. United States, read Kaufman v. McCaughtry." So, if it is religious discrimination, as per the above, then it must have a religious aspect. Otherwise, it could not be discrimination; would you agree? If not, then the above determination would appear to be erroneous. If though, it is judged to be accurate by the court, then "atheism" does have a religious connotation, even if only peripherally; much like the BSA is peripherally religious (but not a religion). Now how does that reflect on the astute judgement of Mr. Jones in the San Diego cases? Just wonder how far we can stretch things in either front?

So, have to ask Beavah; any connection to you in this story?

At least if you are using Google, you are given an option to opt out of targeted ads. Just go to this link, review, then decide to either opt out, or simply edit what they already have on your list. http://www.google.com/ads/preferences?hl=en Do not know if there is something similar for other browsers or connected services.

Shortridge; My point was I do not understand why there might be a problem, as here camps are regularly used by non BSA groups and they pay to do so, just as troops do, though a bit more I believe when private camps. There are camps that are leased, and they all are open to the public on the same terms as scouts. And the two largest in San Diego, Balboa and Fiesta Island are the focus of two combined lawsuits by the ACLU on behalf of people who never even actually tried to use the camps. Their suit is due to the BSA supposedly be a religious organization, so they should not have the lease arrangements supposedly granted that are favorable. Does not matter that they are open completely to the public, and the local council pays and has paid tens of millions of dollars in fees, maintenance, and actually built one from scratch to accommodate a request by the city for a youth aquatic camp. Eventually, this should end up with SCOTUS. But, I suppose noting the suites does not fit with this, based on your comments. Though, if some special tax arrangement were to be made to solve the possible concern, then we likely would find another law suite very quickly. I suppose that is how I got a bit mixed up with this.

If in fact the jambo itself draws the projected amount, they still need room for visitors. Certainly better too big than too small. It is still a grass hillside, so how much more effort is involved in being sure it is large enough, just in case? And yes, hopefully they should find a way to utilize it for non scout activities. Do not understand the concerns. Here, all camps are open to outside groups with various restrictions. Off season, our main camp is booked almost year round on weekends, mostly non scout groups. It helps supplement the upkeep, that is for sure. Some camps were built with the stipulations that they be open to other groups, and are simply under the jurisdiction of the BSA in that council. Of course, that is not enough, as the lawsuits most long going all revolve around these very camps that serve the public as much or more than the local scouts. It surprises me that the aquatic camp in L.A. has not been sued; maybe the scouts actually own the property, rather than lease it. But it is open to the public on similar terms as Balboa and Fiesta Island in San Diego. And I am fairly certain that the Newport Sea Base is also open to the public. Then there are the special accommodations with the Costeau group at Emerald Bay that allows public use of the camp related to the oceanography studies during off season. Philmont is also used by outside groups at times, and they also cooperate with local conservation and outdoor groups regularly. A friend of mine who lives in Taos has done global warming studies there for a number of years. I suspect the other two high adventure sites also have outside groups periodically, especially off season. Our local camp always cooperates with the Forest Service in regard to wild fires, having been a base camp on the Day Fire a few years back, and also having our reservoir/lake always available for helicopters in necessary; at least when it has enough water. It may be dry by the peak season this year am afraid. Of course, little if any of these cooperative arrangements and so on are ever noted when the anti BSA groups attack. If actual surveys were done by outside groups, I would not be at all surprised if the extent of "giving back" to local communities, state, and federal locations far exceeds the dollars to which the complainants grouse about. If you add in all the Eagle service hours, it likely is not even close. In our small council alone the annual hours to schools, parks (city, state, and national), churches, special groups, and miscellaneous others exceeds 30,000 each year. But, none of this matters to those that simply would throw out the "baby" to make a point. JMHO of course.

So, what exactly is a "monster trunk derby"? Large boxes on wheels with remote controls; or maybe very large elephants? Just wondering.

Now Moose'; do you really think he is a "great actor"? Maybe in the B level acting of the old black and white westerns on TV. Sometimes fun to watch, but seen one, pretty much seen them all.

Forgot there are still areas like that. Even in 29 Palms where I have my boyhood house that is now an occasional vacation place, they have easy access to dsl or cable, and I suppose satellite. If I carried a laptop, I could easily get on-line there if I wanted; and I occasionally go to the library to check email if I am there for a few days. Hopefully soon that will not be a real issue anymore, as the process works well for those of us that use it. Good luck.

The unit enters the data to Scoutnet, then takes printout to local council. The council releases the report once the actual record is received there and theoretically checked for accuracy. At least that is how it happens here. If a unit does not enter the data, then the council cannot release the report until it IS entered, which could cause a delay, perhaps a big one in a large council. Units are SUPPOSED TO be entering the data directly in order to allow the relatively quick release of the report. I have not tried to obtain any additional out of council info since a year ago, as I have had no need. But, when I did, as I said, it was immediately downloaded to me, and once the transfer application (still need to fill out one, not just a transfer sheet)is entered in your council, then the info is moved to your unit. At least that is how it went with ours. If it has since changed, I would think that is a reversal of the intent.

It is doubtful that any "real" journalists work for media that might be large enough to get picked up regularly. The basics of a story, as I learned, who, what, where, why, and how are seldom all found in any of these types of reports. Who and what are the main keys it appears, depending on what they are trying to do with the respective hack piece. Maybe they should start printing these things in yellow, just to reinforce the type of so called journalism it is.