NJCubScouter

In most law schools, a typical kind of question to find on a final exam is called an "issue-spotting" question. It consists of a series of facts, often a completely ridiculous scenario with all kinds of wacky events happening on top of each other, and it is the student's job to write an essay applying the legal principles learned in the particular class to those facts -- first identifying ("spotting") the issues raised by the facts and the types of legal claims that could be pursued, and if the professor asks, what the likely resolution of those claims would be. As I said, it's often a c

DH is one of those acronyms people create and it eventually catches on, like FYI... or ASAP... or MYOB... or maybe it eventually doesn't catch on. But while it is in the process of catching on, or not, people who don't know it get confused -- until THEY catch on, which I did about a year ago. DH, often spelled dh, stands for: Dear Husband. I do not think you will find a position code for it on the Adult Leader Application.

My son told me he asked the BOR member that asked the question what the answer was... he man said he couldn't remember, but knew it was something scouts should know!! OK, this situation has just officially advanced into the Theater of the Absurd.

OK, if we're keeping score, now we have a Scoutmaster and BOR members who are ALL adding requirements to what is in the book. And in the case of the SM, adding to the requirements in a major, major way. (I guess what the BOR did is pretty major, too.) I don't doubt for a moment that your son and this other boy are "determined," and as I suggested before, I think the "average boy" would have long since found "better things to do" than be a member of this troop. "Determination" is great, and they should be allowed to channel their determination into earning the NEXT rank -- not one for w

ExplorerCaptainLafferty, The reason for my questions was that when I read your first post, I thought you might have meant that members of your Explorer post were working on Boy Scout ranks as part of their activity in the post. Your second post makes clear that you did NOT mean that. So everything is fine. I apologize for any confusion. Speaking of confusion, I just checked my council's web site to see what THEY say about Learning for Life and Exploring, in light of some of the comments in this thread about how "separate" they are from Scouting. I was first surprised to see that

dsteele says: 3) The theory two of my DE's and I came up with are that the top 3 stars stand for the 3 duties of a Scout: God, Country, others and the bottom two are carried over from the first class patch for the ideals of truth and knowledge. It may turn out that you are correct, but I don't think so. The explanation of the top three points is reasonable enough. But why would it be necessary to have points depicting truth and knowledge, when the stars (the little ones) depicting truth and knowledge are ALREADY on the Star badge. The entire First Class badge, including what have

MaineScouter says: Heck, it took my son nearly 6 months since completing the Life requirements just to get a SM conference! Another boy just got his SM conference for Life on Wednesday night. He's been waiting since early December! Whoa! Six months to get a Scoutmasters conference?? And this other boy, EIGHT months and counting! That is just wrong. Now, just to make sure, did these boys actually go to the Scoutmaster and say "I need a Scoutmaster conference"? And then have to wait all that time? It may seem like a silly question, but there are some boys (including, sometimes, m

I think I once read somewhere (I don't know where) that the five points stand for the five merit badges that must be earned for Star. Of course, somewhere between the time that I earned Star with five merit badges, and today, they changed the requirements so you need six for Star. I have not noticed them changing the Star badge so it has a 6-pointed star, so whether the 1-point-per-merit-badge theory is accurate, or ever was, I can't really say. I have to comment, though, it seems somehow wrong to me that a board of review would even ask a Scout this sort of trivia question, much less d

ExplorerCaptainLafferty, first of all, welcome to the forum. Second of all, I want to make sure you understand that the questions I ask below are not meant in any sort of a negative way toward you. I just want to make sure I understand some things I thought I understood, but maybe I don't. You sound like a very fine young man who is a good example of the spirit and true ideals of Scouting, and of special service to the community, regardless (as you say) of the color of your uniform. Here is what I want to understand. You mention members of your Police Explorer Post wearing the Eagle r

Yes, Rooster, by all means, let's give the boys a good lesson in power politics and the coercive, my-way-or-the-highway attitude present in most of our economic and financial relationships today. That will certainly teach them to be fine citizens. A good dose of realism will prepare them to do what it takes to get what they want in the future, no matter who has to pushed out of the way or climbed over in the process. Of course, to avoid any hypocrisy, it might be necessary to delete some words from the Scout Law. Let's see: Helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, all would have to be cros

I wish my son's troop had 4 candidates, or even 2 candidates, for SPL. It is my understanding that only 1 boy has expressed interest in running for SPL, namely the current ASPL. After spending a week with him at summer camp, my son (11 years old, still finishing up Tenderfoot) described this ASPL as "irresponsible" and said he "spent the entire week setting things on fire." That sounds really great. But I guess I should see the bright side for my own son, that he recognizes how people are supposed to behave, and sets a higher standard for himself than what he sees going on around him.

I can't stand this. Why can't I edit my posts. OK, here is the errata sheet on my previous post. The first time I say 20 years, I mean 20 years AGO. And then there is this paragraph, which I did not edit very well at the end the first time around. Here is what it is supposed to say: And what are those traits for which national would come down and say, you can't have this person as a leader? Well, murder would be a good guess. Any other serious (meaning violent)crime, including sexual abuse of children. I also suppose anyone who expressed an intention to commit a serious c

OK, it's time again, happy campers, for a new thread, and a new opportunity to discuss the real controversy. I was also getting a bit weary of BobWhite's personal attacks against me, such as: Your posts are rife with opinion but little knowledge, giving your thoughts volume but no substance. Very poetic, however false and un-Scoutlike it may be. But rather than continue in that vein, let's look at this statement by Bob: Lets through a little logic at just one 'opinion' reoccurring here. That of local option. How does an organization have a national program AND local option whe

Bob says: A number of posters including you tossed around the phrase "owned and operated a Girl Scout troop" if in fact you were aware that only the Girl Scouts owned and operated their units you made no attempt to rectify that misinformation. That statement is completely false as it relates to me. What I had said is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Here is my post in the other thread that you are referring to, in its entirety: Ed, I don't know, it seems to me that Merlyn is treating BSA and GSUSA even-handedly. He is saying that a military unit can "own and oper

Bob, before you talk about people "making stuff up," I suggest you read my latest post in the other thread. As for my comments about your hypothetical reaction to something that never happened, I prefaced them by saying "I suspect." Obviously I can't prove what you would have done, and neither can you. But I think I'm right, and I notice you didn't bother to deny it. I was actually thinking that I was paying you a compliment by saying that your focus was and is on the BSA and not on the "culture war." I have always viewed your position on this issue not as being anti-gay, but pro-

Oops, I did it again. I said: I agree. (See above.) I meant to say: I agree. (See above.) Let's see how THAT comes out.

Bob says: It would really be swell if folks took some time to get some facts. I agree. (See below.) There is no such thing as the Girls Scouts being sponsored by a government agency or any other kind of group. The Girl Scouts do not use a chartering organization system. All Girl Scout units are owned by the Girl Scouts. They just meet at various locations, they are not owned by the location. The second, third and fourth sentences above are absolutely correct, and are what I already said. The first sentence is NOT true. Organizations do sponsor Girl Scout troops, but (as

I said: if the BSA had decided in late 1991 to permit local option, ... What I really meant to type was late 2000 or in 2001. That all somehow got morphed into 1991. Which certainly would have avoided the whole issue, but that is not what I meant. What I meant is the BSA doing what it did after winning the court case on exclusion of women from being Scoutmasters -- saying ok, we won, but we'll let them in anyway. Graciousness in victory, sort of like how we'd like the boys to act. That's what should have been done in this case, and 2000-2001 was the window of opportunity to do i

BobWhite asks Rooster: Rooster, How exactly does the BSA decide to remove an CO before they do anything wrong? I can't wait to hear the answer to this one. So I'll give it myself, though perhaps not as Rooster would give it. Bob, although you and Rooster agree on the overall BSA policy on gays, you reach that conclusion from two different directions. You treat this whole subject as if its about rules and regulations decided in meetings, majority rules. I suspect, though obviously I can't prove it, that if the BSA had decided in late 1991 to permit local option, your reacti

Rooster says: I think the BSA would be wiser by being proactive and rejecting these chartering organizations before they have the opportunity to exploit the Scouting movement. I have no doubt that you do, Rooster. That is one of the "options" I was talking about earlier. The one I said would take the BSA further down a path that it shouldn't be travelling in the first place. I have no doubt that that is exactly the path you would like the BSA to take. And at the same time, society is on its own, opposite path. I think that as time goes on, more and more religions are going

Bob, as a purely technical matter, you are probably correct. But think about the messages being sent here. A boy is a member of a church or a student at a school (and let's make it a private school to avoid entangling Merlyn into this.) His pastor (or principal) is openly gay. The church (or school) is CO of the troop the boy is a member of. The openly gay pastor (or principal) is IH. The Boy Scouts says an openly gay man is not a good role model. The church (or school) has placed an openly gay man into a position that by definition is supposed to be role model for both youth and adults

Ed, who I think knows better, says: The GSUSA doesn't admit boys as members. That's discrimination! The BSA doesn't admit girls! That's discrimination! What's the difference! Um, I think the difference is that that's only one "g" in common. And it's the least controversial of the 3 "g"s, precisely because both organizations exist. Though, I guess that in the case of the GSUSA, that "g" stands for "guys." If the other 2 "g"s were resolved, you'd never hear another word about that "g."

Ed, how is it contradictory? There have been openly gay Episcopal priests for years. There have been openly gay Reform Jewish rabbis for years (probably more years, I would guess.) I am sure there are a few other faiths in the same category. The BSA has never banned Episcopal or Reform Jewish places of worship from being CO's. How does changing one gay clergyman's title from "priest" to "bishop" change that? (It has probably never come up with Reform Judaism because there is no Jewish counterpart to a bishop. The only higher authority in Judaism is, as they say in the Hebrew National ho

So Ed, what are YOU saying about the issue of gay clergy and the BSA? Do you think a religion should be barred from being a CO if it permits gay clergy? The BSA's answer to that last question, so far anyway, has been: No. I think Bob's point, if I put it in my own words, is that if the answer is no, then promoting a clergyman from priest to bishop wouldn't make a difference. Now, you may think that a religion that permits gay clergy at any level is not suitable to be a BSA CO, but the BSA would not agree with you. On the other hand, if you think that the BSA is being "contradicto

Ed, I don't know, it seems to me that Merlyn is treating BSA and GSUSA even-handedly. He is saying that a military unit can "own and operate" a unit of either organization as long as the organization follows the same principles of non-discrimination that the military unit (as a part of the government) is required to follow. Of course, the issue would not arise in the case of a GSUSA unit, for two reasons: 1. The GSUSA (apparently) does not exclude atheists. (I say "apparently" because this is what I have heard, and I have tried to find a clear statement confirming this on the Inte