BSA is dying

[OldGreyEagle]

I think you can appreciate the talents and accomplishments of a person while not approving of personal habits. Paul Guaguin comes to mind of a brilliant artist with less than admirable faimliy values. St. Augustine is another who comes to mind in not being a terrific role model. And despite all that is done in Scouts regarding the gay issue, when a patrol is awarded the blue ribbon for placing first in the Klondike Derby and they break into a spontaneous rendition of "We are the Champions" I dont think anyones sexual orientation is likeley to be changed. I may not think David Crosby's life is worth emulating, but "Teach the Children Well" when read as a poem is as good a Court of Honor closing as I know.

 

I beleive Charles Barkely is right when he says "I am not a role model". When we look outside our community for role models, we have to fail, for what are we saying about ourselves and our community? In countless surveys concerning the most "influential people in my life" students routinley rank parents in the top 5.

 

Oh, and in Moulin Rouge, the use of "Your Song" is a beautiful thread that ties the movie together regardless of who wrote it. Of course, Moulin Rouge itself is a rip-off of Camille which is a story of questionable ethics written by the illegitimate son of Alexander Dumas so maybe I shouldn't have read either it or the Three Musketeers. Perhaps we should ban "All for One and One for All" from all scouting events as well. Mark Twain was known to like hard liquor and often spoke in a less than gentlemanly manor. David Thoreau was a non-repetent reprobate who refused to pay his taxes. Ben Franklin's lust for life may have altered the gene pool of more than a few french noble families. I could go into the author of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley, wife of Percy Bythe Shelley and their friend Lord Byron, but that's way to easy.

 

My conclusion? Admire the work, not the whole person.

[NJCubScouter]

Re: Elton John, Freddie Mercury, etc. Let's not forget that great "leading man" of the 50s and 60s, Rock Hudson.

 

Not to mention one of the greatest players in the history of football, O.J. Simpson.

 

I think that the public too often forgets that being able to act, or sing, or run with a football, does not necessarily mean that you have anything else of great significance to contribute, or that your life should be some sort of role model. I hate all of the celebrity news and gossip that seems to be all around me. I don't want to know who Ben Affleck is dating, I am barely sure which one of the gaggle of current actors he even is.

 

Very rarely, someone distinguishes himself/herself in entertainment or sports and turns out to be a genuinely good person who is someone to emulate, and who can excel in other areas. Bill Bradley comes to mind. But in most cases -- look, I am the biggest Beatles fan I know, but I don't want my children taking LSD or cheating on their spouses.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[Rooster7]

Despite Charles Barkley's declaration (and he may have meant it in a positive way), I don't think he or anyone else can claim or disclaim the position of role model. By virtue of being a professional athlete, children will look up to him. Likewise by virtue of being an adult leader, some boys will try to emulate us. The job of "role model" cannot be abandoned because you did not seek it or because you think the burden is too heavy. Charles and other athletes may like limiting theirs obligations to playing a sport and collecting a multi-million dollar check...however, I submit that pro sports teams' owners and their employees have a greater obligation to society. Likewise, an adult volunteer may like to limit his responsibility to some narrowly defined position, which he holds within a troop. But, BSA volunteers owe the boys much more - to be a person of good character and someone worth emulating - a role model. That's my two cents.

[OldGreyEagle]

Rooster, you and I will have to disagree on this one. A sports figure is just that, a sports figure. Whether he is the nasty SOB in the persona of Ty Cobb, or the drunken, womanizing Babe Ruth, or the hard drinking late night partying Mickey Mantle they all were professionals being paid to do their job. Extracurricular activities notwithstanding.

 

A Boy Scout leader however, is much different. We hold ourselves to be role models, that is our job, and we are paid accordingly. And we are role models full time

 

 

(and least someone thinks my last thought wa a cheap shot, we are paid, in the number of Engineering students in college, in the number of scouts who remember at odd times what we have said and change a behavior, we can have riches far beyond any material wealth because of our roles)

 

[Rooster7]

Cal Ripken Jr., while he probably never proclaimed himself to be a role model, has and will continue to inspire young boys. He, by virtue of being a successful professional athlete, became a role model for millions. No one told these boys to follow Mr. Ripken; they just did because he acquired and excelled at a very enviable position - all star, professional shortstop - a dream come true for thousands, if not millions of young men. In the process, he taught kids to work hard for a goal and to never sacrifice their integrity to get there.

 

Likewise, a Cobb or Mantle inspired millions in their generation. Unfortunately, that inspiration probably included rudeness, womanizing, and drunkenness. That is their legacy and they cannot escape it. Mike Tyson is trying to evade a similar legacy by claiming he "never asked to be role model". Yet, I say, that's a lousy excuse. If you're successful in life, part of the price for that success should be that you set a positive example for others to follow.

 

Public exposure and the eyes of the younger generation will establish who are the role models. Its not something someone can chose to be or not to be. Some folks, who live in the spotlight, like to wash their hands of this responsibility; Often they are able to pacify and/or convince the public that they are unaccountable as role models. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that one day they will be held accountable. But since they think no one pays them any attention or cares, I'm sure they will be surprised when they are asked, "Why did you behave in such a manner, leading so many young people down a path of ruin?"

[SR540Beaver]

Some people will be considered role models whether they want to be or not. But when a person flatly says, "I'm not a role model" that is a pretty clear warning that their life style is not to be imitated. If a reporter asks Barkley if he is concerned about kids imitating him, he can say (right or wrong), "look, I'm on record as telling kids not to look up to my lifestyle as a way for them to live". At least he is honest and up front about it.

 

Besides that, most parents play a role in pointing children towards role models. We've had numerous conversations with our 9 year old son as to why Ripkin and McGwire are good guys and someone to admire, while Bonds, Tyson, Rodman, Barkley and Eminem are not. He gets it! All a part of good parenting and guiding your children.

 

The most influential role models in my life were first and foremost my Dad, a particular youth Sunday School teacher and one of my first bosses. I saw them actually live their lives. It was worth a million times what the "image" I saw of an athelete or actor was. Give kids credit, they know the difference. They may be impressed short term by the flash, but they'll stick with the real thing in the long term.

[OldGreyEagle]

I know this may be considererd treason in the state of Maryland, and I assume the role of devil's advocate:

 

For what should Cal Ripken Jr be praised? For playing at less than 100% of his physical skills when a competent replacement was availible? For being in a slump (he had a few) and insisting to be in the order when his doing so was a detriment to the team? For insisting on separate hotel accomodaitons when "the Streak" got down to the wire and removing himself from his team mates?

 

I make no argument that the record Cal Ripken Jr set is probably untouchable, and it was a great mental and physical feat, but ol'Cal didnt always have him teammates in mind when he was chasing Lou. He has much to admire in his charactor, he also has a few foibles, then again dont we all.

 

Rooster, forgive me, but I had to tell it as I see it

[Zahnada]

While we're on the topic: GO LANCE ARMSTRONG!!! Now there's a hero. There's someone who kids should emulate. Of course, it's rarely the choice of the parents on who should become a child's role model. They can play their child in a position to find a role model in certain people, but the freedom of choice rests with the child.

 

This whole conversation about sports athletes being role models interests me. I think schema theory fits in this really well. Kids separate out the events in their lives with amazing skill. They realize that a basketball player is a basketball player. Therefore they imitate the player's on court skills and actions. As a youth basketball coach and referee, I hated to see kids display the same facial expressions of "I didn't foul!" that so many professional athletes have.

 

However, they do not look to basketball players for the way to live a moral life or the way to treat women or the way to abuse substances. A kid may shoot a free throw a certain way because "That's the way my hero shoots it" but they don't start smoking pot because "That's the way my hero lives." Athletes outside the world of sports do not match up with schemas. Their actions, while often unfortunate, are not (always) looked to for advice on life.

 

That's where parents and scouting come in. A parent IS looked to for nearly all aspects of life. A parent encompasses many mental categories of a child and therefore their example is extremely important. The same could be said for scouting.

 

So, I agree with some that people can be appreciated for their accomplishments. But in the case of Lance Armstrong, the guy is an amazing athlete, has an amazing story, and is a class act.

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

I'm not that big of an Oriole fan that I should be trying to defend Cal Jr. However, he has been a big community guy. He gives back. To my knowledge, he doesn't get drunk in public, beat his wife, do drugs, or give long speeches as to why he should be considered the greatest player ever, etc. I realize that these are things that many of us can claim, but my point is - boys do look up to him and he has not been a bad influence. Unfortunately, boys also look up to Mike Tyson and others as well. As per my original point, one does not choose to be a role model - or not to be one (i.e., Charles Barkley). Circumstances dictate who is and who is not. While Barkley may be "honest" concerning his desires, he's still setting an example for others (young and impressionable kids) to follow - whether he wants them to follow or not, is irrelevant.

 

Kwc57,

 

You make valid points and I agree. Yet, I still feel those in the spotlight will be held accountable for their behavior. Furthermore, while we can agree on what good parents ought to do - not everyone is blessed with a good parent. Consequently, those role models can and do make a difference - for the good and the bad.

[OldGreyEagle]

Rooster,

 

I meant no respect to Cal Ripken, I only mean to point out role models, especially those we know only from the press. will always be suspect. There was a time when Jesse Jackson and Michael Jordan would have been role models, no longer. I think its a mistake to look anyone in public life and say I want to be like him/her. As I understand it, only one man was perfect (though some may dispute that) and its his life we should emulate

[evmori]

Not sure who posted it but I agree with the deeds not the person is what we should look to as a role model.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[littlebillie]

been away...

 

Bob White, the difference between a democracy (esp. a representative deomocracy, and NOT a full popular democracy) and our form of 'republic' is quite nearly negligible, esp. when members of the electoral college are forced to vote as their popular vote, and the selection of senators has been taken away from the state governments and given to the people). If anyone wishes to quibble that point, I consider it smoke when the real issue is NOT what tag is stuck on the thing, but the thing itself.

 

regardless, the main point that was sidestepped is that just because "most folks" agree with something doesn't make that something wrong. and just because a vocal minority espouses some position, doesn't make that position wrong.

 

oft and oft, that lonely bold holdout is flatout wrong, and leaving that side of the picture out paints it the way you want, but not completely the way it is!

 

 

ok, on to ROLE MODELS. The very term tells us that it's limited. heroes and ideals are more rounded. when we speak of a role model, we REALLY only look at the role. OJ's role to be modelled was 'football player'. that's it. he was not a model husband, and no one considers him a role model for that.

 

but when we speak of a hero, I think at least part of the common usage is for someone who is more fully to be emulated - Clinton is more of a hero for some than Nixon, say. May be a fine point, but I think one we need to make. a role model is good for the role - so what is that particular role? a hero is someone you want to be like all 'round.

 

I think it's hard for a parent to separate the two - your child has you as a model for MANY roles, with few distinctions. the edges blur, and a parent is a full-spectrum role model. Your kid will model spouse, parent, breadwinner, reader, sports fan, religion and everything else after you - so for a parent, it's hard to focus on the more limited utility of OTHER role models.

 

anyway - I felt like there was a distinction to be made, and I think it's important. Maybe it's like in Scouts where the Merit Badge Counselor can be a 'role model' for a certain limited discipline, but Patrol and Troop can be seen as a more rounded, ideal model in multifaceted demonstations of principles and skills - more of a hero (or, I suppose, a multi-role model.)

 

Regardless - when speaking of role models with your kid, make sure you help separate the role from the rest, the wheat from the chaff, if appropriate or necessary...

 

 

[Bob White]

Littlebillie,

You raise some very good points about role models.

 

Oh, by the way the Electoral College is not bound by the popular vote of their State. They are free to vote their conscience.

 

The difference between a democracy and a republic is an important thing to know and a good civics lesson to explain the importance of the PLC and the responsibility of representing all the needs and characteristics of your Patrol members not just how the majority feel.

 

There is a reason why in the pledge we do not say "and to the democracy for which we stand". To ignore it denies an important element of our legacy as a society.

 

BW

 

[Rooster7]

Oh, by the way the Electoral College is not bound by the popular vote of their State. They are free to vote their conscience.

 

Actually, as I understand it...some states do legally bound their representatives (the electorates) to vote as the popular vote of the state dictates. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but I seem to remember hearing it from a credible source.

 

[Bob White]

Thanks Rooster,

Maybe we have a civics teacher out there that can help. I checked a couple web sites and did find that some states have different methods of selecting the members of the college, but once they are selected they seem to operate the voting process the same.

 

I also found this. "Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal."

 

Here is one of the sites I found. http://www.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college1.htm

 

BW