skeptic

Can surely tell who has not been around forever. It is basically going back to the original way of doing it. There were no Cub specific knots for years, they were simply Scouter knots with a device. I have three devices, a scout and commissioner device on the training knot, and the scout device on the key. I never understood the reason for the Cubbing array anyway, as they were the same awards, just in a different area. There were no special knots for senior scout leaders; they wore the related device. Will help a bit with the clutter; but there are so many other new knots, that it will still often look like a full dress military officer at times. Right now, I am trying to decide if I should wear the West knot, as it was given in my name, rather than me giving the money. One of my elderly Scouter friends, who has only Scouting as his family, donated insurance money from his wife's death and put about 6 or 7 of his long time friends on the certificates. So, I guess I should put the knot on, just to respect his recognition. I had been given another one in honor of one of my past Eagles who was killed in an Air Force training accident years ago; but never felt like I should wear the knot. Just have the cert and so on in my memory box. Am always torn about wearing them, but have one shirt with them all, for special activities. Others have none or some.

They are called a bigot and get sued.

A comment in another thread and board regarding youth and adults feeling uncomfortable in a more public area made me think about my own experience as a youth. At that time, we did not have separate areas for adult men and youth in public changing areas or restrooms and so on. I can remember showering at the YMCA before I was 10, along with men and boys. In high school (we did not have JH gyms)we changed and showered in communal areas, though the coaches did have their own office area with shower. My brother and I have talked about this once or twice, and cannot remember being particularly traumatized by any of the standards, or lack of, of the times. Maybe we just adjusted, because that was what you did. While I understand much of the concerns in these discussions, I sometimes wonder if we are making things worse with some of our reactions that tend towards paranoia at times. The same goes for many of the institutional responses to various games, childhood interactions, and basic socialization of children and adolescents. We talk of not letting kids be kids, then program everything they do. We talk about kids not learning as well, yet often give them little opportunity to simply play imaginatively. How many here insist that every outing have x number of "skill" sessions? How often do you simply go camping, then let the kids just run around in the natural setting, monitoring for safety without intruding unless necessary. If you have not, try it. You might get a new perspective on things. Please, I do not think every precaution is over reaction. I do wonder though where we draw the line, and if we may be short changing our kids at times. Certainly we have some kids today that are afraid, literally, to do even simple things by themselves, and seem terrified they might make a mistake. Just some food for thought.

Am I just being left out, or did I do something right? I do not have any ads with banners or pics. Do have something with a link about cruises (which I have never taken nor looked for), and a couple of camping gear links.

Could not locate the original thread relating to climategate, so am tacking on here. Yes, I realize the attached link is from a group many find less than acceptable. But, the basic info is definitely of interest in this area. It will be interesting to see the follow ups on this particular study. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html?ncid=webmail12

"As Beavah points out, there really seems to be a lack of good mainstream scientific journalism." In reality, real journalism is almost extinct. It is really a shame that the best journalists appear to work outside of mainstream media. Whether it is due to standards, or lack of, or that "sound bite" writing is not real journalism, so the best writers simply go elsewhere. All you need to do is look at the atrocious spelling and grammar in any large newspaper to understand how far even basic standards have slipped. One of the reasons that a few blogs are so popular in some areas of interest. But of course, then we have other issues related to veracity and opinion and supporting material. Interesting how much of the divisiveness now so prominent can be at least partially connected to lack of basic education, such as reading and comprehension and basic math. Just an aside observation. Sorry if it is too far off thread.

Shortridge: I will accept the likelihood that "some" executives were more concerned about "ass covering" than what was important, and would suggest that you admit there are some attorneys that are simply out for finding the biggest paydays and could care less about much else.

As Eamonn indicates, there is much that is not black or white, since most of the info is still not in the light. So, how does it get examined? Should BSA today, put together a team of individuals, both from within and without the organization to cull through the files and determine which ones were not dealt with as they should have been? What might be discovered by bringing it all out? To me, that is what they should do, as I too do not feel that trying to keep it in the shadows serves any purpose. On the other hand, the material needs to be handled very carefully, so as to not destroy people with innuendo without real proof. Families involved would need to be willing to open their specific experiences, and if they choose to not do so, it should be kept private. Cases that may have indication of having been presented to authorities and turned away need to also be determined, as do cases where the victims or their responsible caretakers made the decision to not press the case. As already suggested by some, bring it to light, determine where egregiously poor decisions were made, and at what levels, then make every effort to continue to improve the current program and procedures to make any future occurrence of these types of things as unlikely as possible. And, if they do happen, immediately turn it over to authorities outside the program. What should not happen, in my opinion, is to have the information made available to reporters and lawyers with questionable ethics "carte blanc", or to publicize things without permission of the victims and their families. But the issue will not go away, nor will it get any better if National chooses to continue to stonewall it. It is entirely possible that they are already working on the best way to handle these files, and their fallout. It needs to be a rational and open approach, rather than a panicked or emotional one. Meantime, we still need to do our own part and work within the system to give the best parts of the program to our scouts, and not be part of the problem by burning effigies and making accusations that we cannot support. So, can we keep this discussion within bounds, and constructive, rather than hysterical and accusatory? And that goes for me too. (This message has been edited by skeptic)

Shortridge; please try reading what I asked, rather than suggest that I think the policies of the time were right.

While few here would likely say the methods in place 25+ years ago to deal with abuse accusations, verified, or only allegations, were correct, they were pretty much what "was done" in the majority of cases then. So, how do we deal with judgment of these issues more than a quarter century later? We can scream and holler all we want about how atrociously these cases were handled, but the fingers then need to be pointed at "society in general", as they were just as guilty of the how authorities and institutions reacted because they refused to support the few cases that actually came to public awareness. Even when someone was convicted, which was pretty rare, the charges were often reduced, and the penalties were slaps on the wrist. Certainly there were no public records shared nationwide by the government. The scouts files that are now the center of such controversy may very well have actually been ahead of their time. Do we have to go back and open every rape case that was swept under the carpet because of the attitudes of the time? Should we go back and dig up "all the dirt possible" on any and all public figures that were just ignored or "made go away"? People often refused to press charges, for who knows what reason. Sometimes it was ignorance, surely; but it was often the knowledge that actually getting someone prosecuted and found guilty was very difficult, and it opened the victims up to public embarrassment at least, and often ridicule or worse. So, can we really make completely fair judgments on things from the past, using standards of today? Should we, especially if all the individuals in position of decision at the time, such as family, institutional leaders, or legal authorities felt it should not be done? And, if we do, should it be taken to the extremes of possibly destroying good institutions and well meaning, though misguided (based on today's views)individuals; and enrich individuals with questionable ethics themselves? (This message has been edited by skeptic)(This message has been edited by skeptic)

PETA is helping a killer whale sue for its rights; any relation to all this?

"The boys DO work in a realm of face-to-face interaction if the unit is active. It is not only a source of fun and learning but also socialization so they can learn how to get along with others" Pack; Above is so true. Was on a day hike Saturday with 5 scouts, and while we were at the rock scrambling location (no ropes), you could see the interaction going on. Have one photo taken by someone else that shows them in a shady spot in animated discussion, completely engrossed and having a good time. I suspect they were talking about video games or such, but they were together and interacting. We let them wade in the river on the way back, even though it is almost November; because they wanted to. It is too low to be a real safety issue, but they had fun. They also spent almost 20 minutes skimming, or trying to skim rocks. Let them be kids, and stay out of their way if not unsafe. Do that and we go on forever, no matter what format the adults use to screw things up. Just hope I can stay mobile enough to still hike with them. Will be 68 next year in March, and already have back issues that effect backpacking; but day hikes seem to be fine, as long as I can take my time.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Pretty sure there are a number of camps in the west also; some have separate high adventure sessions in conjunction with regular summer camp options. Also a sea base in Newport Beach, and special HA activities at Emerald Bay. Still, always sad when camps are lost.

Moose; Here is your post from the other thread to which I had referred. "The DE should not have the right to remove a volunteer for this.. The Charter Org if they are frustrated with what they might see a an organized mutiny might.. The Council should only have the right to remove people due to crimial records of one type or another.. Period.. Otherwise it is the charter Orgs unit, and they have the right to choose their volunteers.. I would give your Charter Org Rep a jingle, and tell them the story, and get them to put the DE in their place.. Edited to add: Oh yeah they also have the right to kick out any homosexuals & atheists. (This message has been edited by moosetracker) " To me, it appeared you were adding the last, edited line, to make sure this area of contention did not get missed; and it should be kept in the other forum, from my perspective. It certainly will not be a reason for dismissal with which "most" executives would need to deal. And, to me, that entire discussion is primarily a political one, as it is pushed mostly by individuals who have axes to grind and agendas to move forward politically. So, I DO SEE IT as a "politically correct" area of confrontation. Hopefully my comments are a bit clearer now.

http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1876/article_detail.asp#

B.P; not sure why you think I was referring to you in regard to political issues. I was referring to the raising of PC issues as reason for dismissal by a SE; and that was noted by another poster. Your comment is rude; and it does not reflect well on you, IMO.

Appears to me that the same thing is seen in the school student leadership. For whatever reason, there tends to be more girls than boys overall, especially in middle school levels. May be the issue "momof2cubs" notes, or simply a maturity and interest thing. I would go more for the latter in that by the end of high school, there appears to be more male participation in the schools too.

Two comments here. B.P, while I know you were a pro at one time, I believe you are partly muddying the waters in regard to SE only can remove. As noted before, the CO has the final say on unit leadership. As I understand it, they can terminate the individual's membership, at least in their unit, which may be where we are fuzzy. I guess the individual could technically go elsewhere if the SE or other units should choose to accept that. We have dismissed a couple over the years, but we did notify the council and let them know our reasons, and they were removed. I personally would really appreciate NOT HAVING POLITICAL ISSUES BROUGHT UP IN THREADS OUT SIDE OF THAT CATEGORY. We have more than enough opportunity to butt heads there; and comments relating to those issues, outside of there, really should be kept out of other discussions, in my opinion. Thanks to all for considering my comments here.

SM618; You need to understand that "common sense" and "reality" are no longer rational ways to respond. After all, the PC crowd has "all the answers", and "know better" than we "out of touch" commoners. The same empty nest PCers making many of the comments and authoritarian statements, if confronted with "their own sons" being in that unit with an acknowledges Gay would more often than not find a reason to not have the boy in it. What many espouse is totally different than what they will do when confronted with the reality. Again, that is why local CO control should be the rule. Few would survive if they made that choice; certainly they would likely never be highly successful. Your point about starting a separate group that follows similar ideas, other than those awful ones they do not like is valid; but they will not do it, as they really know they are likely to not succeed. For some reason they seem to think they should be able to dictate what others should do and think, rather than simply living their own lives in whatever way they want, while allowing others to do the same. As always, JMO

Engineer; When I was a kid, scouts were everywhere; we wore uniforms to school either for special activities or because we were going to scouts after, even in high school. I became completely reinvolved in 1976, and scouting was still fairly prominent. But there was already the negatives from the inner city program and backlash from Viet Nam and any uniformed, civic supporting organization. Saw the disappearance of window displays in stores, partly because of malls, but mostly because of attitude and PC nonsense. Yes, it was already playing its discordance in its own way. Actually, there has always been "some" anti scouting groups; see the attacks by the Communists and so on in the 30's, or the anti-militarism in the teens. Things change, and eventually, with luck, we will adjust. But, just like saying the only way to start a fire is with friction or other "natural way". Even in the infancy of scouts, that "was not" the requirement; it was two matches, because "that" technology was already in use. As pointed out, we can never go back. Yet we can still respect the history, and make current scouts aware of these skills, even while we embrace more modern ones and equipment. If we insist on living in the first half of the 20th century, we really will become lost. JMO

Just my own thought with no known studies with which to support, but I think almost any college grad that had to actually work their way to their degree is likely to succeed at some level. Simply the knowledge gained in having to fend for oneself. Sort of like the scout whose jamboree is given to him, versus the one who had to earn most of it, or not go. Maybe if parents put a condition on their kids that they must earn at least 25%, or more, of their education, the kids would appreciate what they were getting and put in an more honest effort. Of course I mean real work, not a gimme of some family friend or relative. But, just my opinion as someone that would not have gone to college if he had not worked for most of it. My parents basically paid my rent the first month I went away, and fed me when I came home on break. Then, after my time in service, I had G.I. benefits, but still worked almost full time.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

My, My!!! "My child would "never" do such a thing. I was not there, but I know better, because he is my son. I did not raise him that way!" There are crazies in both camps folks. Just admit that not everyone in your sphere of belief is as perfect as you think. Fools abound; and they are not limited by party, age, color, or any other commonly used group dynamic. Both sides of this head butting discussion have valid points. And likely most of those for or against each, are rational and civil for the most part. We seldom take note of the ocean around the cresting wave. Suffice it to say, our representatives are not doing their jobs most of the time; and that includes both sides. It is just tiresome how the idea of common ground is such an anathema to people. For a scouting board, where the posters purport, for the most part, to actually be scouters, some responses are very disappointing. As leaders we need to set good examples. And I hope that some of the things displayed on here are not shared with the youth for whom we are responsible. One of the reasons that political participation in official Scouting capacity is not allowed. Now, maybe it is time for that pie.

Temps in the hundreds is not common at Philmont. Have been there for two treks and 5 training courses, and "never" saw triple digits. Did see "lots" of rain in 1990; monsoon season, and rained 8 of 10 days on the trail, 3 days without let up almost. Learned what it was like to hike in a sauna. Still would not trade the experiences there for much. It is a spectacular place, and well worth the efforts. Hope to maybe get back before I get so old I cannot walk; but only for training. No more treks for me. Wish I could see a real trip to The Summit in my future; but again, would likely only be a training course at this point in my life. Do not hold much hope for attending in 2013, unless I get my physical being into better shape and find solutions to some chronic issues. Our troop is 90 this year, and we still have some old equipment I use for displays. In the 30's and 40's they build wood frames, then used diamond hitches to tie their gear on the frames; most used blanket roles in a horseshoe over the top. When I was an explorer in the late 50's, I had an old "official" explorer frame from BSA. Do not know what happened to that, but wish I had it for my collection today. Historical research will show that while scouts in the early days definitely walked and hiked more than we do today, in many respects, they also used pack animals and trek carts, or drove to a base camp. We have photos in our archives of the old truck they used in our first couple of decades. It had special boxes that fit over the wheels on the flat bed, with a third one between the sides against the cab. The doors were on chains that dropped down when the sides of the truck were removed. They would drive to the end of the road in the mountains above our area, and then camp. The boxes had staples and cooking materials. They took rifles and fishing gear to supplement the staples. Personal gear went in the middle, and they climbed in on top. G2SS people would have had a stroke. Even in the 50's we still rode in backs of trucks on top of gear; not that we were particularly smart to do so. It was just the way it was. I have an old book about scouting in the Chicago area in the first decade. It talks about walking to the edge of town and jumping the train to the countryside, then hiking to a spot to camp. Even talks about sending scouts to farm houses to ask for food. We have much for which we should be thankful. In many respects, our loud voices here about how awful the modern program is are just "wrong". Much of what Scouts and Ventures do today would have been considered impossible or simply crazy in the early days. Approaches to adventure change with the times. We either learn to adapt, or we fail to succeed. Not too many of today's scouts or scouters would choose to hike the areas many do using what was available in the first few years. JMHO

If the two "controlling parties" did not have a lock on any "real" political power, we might see them all replaced by other groups; but the other parties really have very poor chances in most cases. Part of that may be the odd choices so often running; but a lot has to do with their simple lack of exposure and financial backing.