slontwovvy

Thanks for the thoughts. As a clarification to eamonn, among others, the counselors who signed off on his merit badges are indeed registered counselors. I only know that he failed to complete the requirements because he started those merit badges with me.

I'm not the SM; I'm an ASM.

Hello everyone, I haven't posted here in a long while but have an issue that has come up recently and I would appreciated any advice anyone can offer. There is a 17-year-old Life Scout in the troop who will be leaving enxt week to go abroad for a year, during which time he will turn 18. He completed his Eagle project last summer, but has had some hangups with scout spirit and merit badges. For the former, he has been verbally abusive (and occasionally physically) to boys in the troop, and has often been caught lying about it and other things to troop adults. For the latter, he had to complete Personal Management, Personal Fitness, and Family Life. However, he has failed to deal with these issues. His promises for change at his scoutmaster conference and to troop adults have gone unfulfilled, and he failed to complete the 90 day requirements for some of his merit badges; he started too late, but found counselors (in one case a parent) to sign off on them anyway. However, the district advancement chairman, not knowing of these things and wanting to get another Eagle feather in his cap, has scheduled a board of review for this weekend anyway. Further, it will not have any representation by the troop, only district people who do not know the scout. (In my council, an Eagle BOR has 3 or 4 troop adults and 1 or 2 district people on it--I'm not sure how it's done elsewhere). This will allow the boy to effectively be rubberstamped without any questioning on his tasks for improvement, or about his honesty. The one thing the troop still needs to do is have the scoutmaster sign the scout's Eagle application. My question is this: is it right to with-hold the scoutmaster signature and not allow this scout to get Eagle? Or is this an overreaction?

A few general suggestions, then a few specific to the nature area: -The attention span for boys is about 15 minutes; after that, you lose them. Plan your instruction in light of this fact. You should be moving around, doing new things, interrupting for a quick round of Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes, etc. Keep them active and constantly reset their attention spans. -Know a bit of interesting peripheral information about your topic to spice things up. While the actual merit badge material might not be the most exciting stuff in the world, if you can intersperse that with information on, say, black holes (for Astronomy merit badge), the boys are more interested and this interest will usually carry over to the rest of the material. -Always remember the adage that ends "Involve me and I learn." Don't do demonstrations, get them involved. More specific to the nature area: -Edible plant hikes -Star bikes--with the high adventure department, a mountain-bike overnight to a good stargazing location. -Edible Landfill and Edible Glacier (I'm sure you could find the instructions online). -Bring in outside people. For instance, if you can find a raptor rehabilitation center or similar organization nearby, they often can do bang-up demonstrations with live birds, etc. I'll write down some more specific suggestions for merit badges when I find the time.

The editor of a local newspaper, himself an Eagle Scout, recently wrote an editorial on the subject. http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/opinion_14632159.shtml I don't believe anyone could have said it better.

Hmm, a post-pubescent 15-year-old boy...If my hold on the English language serves me correctly, this guy isn't a pedophile, he's a homosexual.

Merlyn's example comparing the KKK and NAMBLA to the BSA is completely absurd. First of all, Merlyn should know that some sorts of speech are not protected by the first amendment, and as such, governments should not be enabling it. Among these methods of speech are speech designed to intimidate (i.e. KKK) and speech which directly leads to or promotes the commission of a crime (i.e. NAMBLA). To say that these three organizations are equal is to deny the Constitution. Slont

Thanks for making my day, Merlyn. That was a hoot! I just found it rather amusing that this legislation spends more than half of its length praising the Boy Scout organization. And I found the woman's comments so delightfully moderate, so politician-like. And her statement that she knows several Eagle Scouts who have left the organization...I think the number who have mailed their badges back to the BSA headquarters is less than two hundred total (over 40,000 given last year alone). I realize one can quit without turning in the badge, but how outraged can they be if they don't send in the badge? Oh, well, I digress. On a darker note, I am somewhat appalled that with all of the problems the California legislature could be focusing on, they have to waste their time focusing on minor, almost nonimportant issues.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/index.html Unrelated, but I thought this was interesting as well.

Hmm, I guess the whole, "please, share your opinions on the questions" must not have been too clear. I know that could have been hard for some people to understand. (sarcasm)

Merl, I'll ask you one more time--please, share your opinions on the questions. I can see the relevance in them, and I'd be willing to bet many other posters can as well--they show a pattern, they are fairly closely related. I have to wonder when you're unwilling to share your opinion on a few topics, and I have to wonder when you think the world would be better off without the Boy Scouts. Let's see, millions of hours of community service, training in self-discipline, respect for the outdoors, citizenship, and fitness, a chance for the less privileged to rise above their condition, and so much more...can't see any good in that...

Then defend your opinions, don't evade the questions.

Merl, to quote myself, "I was asking you your opinion on the questions." When I referred to "you" in my original post, I was not referring to you personally, but to the American left. Put down the outrage.

All your silence does is prove my points--you don't bother to read what other people say, preferring to stay snug in your hole, so to speak, and, secondly, that you are being silent as an admission that you can't provide a good answer.

Man, leave for a few hours, and when you get back... Merlyn, by not answering my questions, all you did was affirm my suspicions. I find your hypocrisy truly amazing--espousing "tolerance" toward seemingly anyone except straight white Christian males while stooping to petty name-calling of anyone who does not fall into your lock-step cadence of political correctness. Additionally, you call upon everyone else to answer your questions while you ignore anytime a question of you. I was asking you your opinion on the questions. Looking at your past posts and comparing your ideologies to groups, and considering that your most common liberal source is the ACLU, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that you share many, if not all, of the viewpoints of the ACLU. It is a logical train of thought. Second, my questions were not erroneous--I never stated that whites could not receive scholarships from the UNCF--read my post. Bob Jones admits blacks...your claim is moot. Last, you state "Of course, the whole slant of your questions is just misdirection; if other injustices exist, does this excuse the BSA's dishonesty in chartering discriminatory BSA units to government agencies? No, of course not." Again, you are guilty of not reading, instead letting your own preconceptions get in the way. My questions were not intended to justify any actions of the BSA, but rather an attempt to understand how the broader group of modern liberals can justify these contradictions. I was once fairly liberal, but left the left when I saw these contradictions. Just curious as to how you can justify them. Your silence merely confirms my beliefs. And I'm still curious as to if you've ever attended an actual Scout meeting. Slont