NJCubScouter

If that's what you think happened, that's your choice. Maybe someone else would like to debate with you about it, but not me.

Well, he certainly has had an impact on the BSA, although I understand some here won't view that as positively as I do.

Ah. So in other words, "Johnny, I think you should buy the XYZ Co. Model 600 backpack. The fact that I am getting a kickback, um, I mean "access to special deals" in order to say that, has nothing to do with my opinion." Am I on the right track?

That press release is so vague and has so many marketing buzzwords that I can't even figure out what this is all about. I don't think I have ever read or heard of the term "category influencers" before. I'm not even convinced that "influencers" is a real word. (I do know that the spellcheck on this system thinks its a typo.) Nitpicking aside, I don't understand who is supposed to be doing what in this "partnership". Can anyone translate this into English?

Various youth-related groups that I am aware of have done this kind of thing with varying degrees of success. I don't specifically recall any BSA units doing it. But the way you describe it, I don't see how you can go wrong - especially if they are really giving you 20% of ALL sales that night (as opposed to just those where the people show up with one of your flyers.) I agree with qwazse about checking with council to see whether the Unit Money-Earning Application is required for this. My guess is "yes", but I have guessed wrong in the past.

Some people seem surprised that this thread got off-topic. After almost 14 years in this forum, I am more surprised when a thread stays ON-topic.

I guess I have to say I have no personal knowledge of what experience and training a UC needs to be successful, because as far as I know there has never even been a UC assigned to my troop during the time I have been involved in it, and I never saw a UC as a Cub leader either. But it does make sense that someone who is supposing to be assisting unit leaders should have some experience as an adult leader as well as full training for the UC position. And the idea of an inexperienced, untrained person being sent to "mediate" a unit's leadership issues sounds like a recipe for certain failure.

Velcro? That "day and age" started more than 40 years ago.

Since this is already in "Issues and Politics", I can say that when you have a presidential candidate who regularly calls other people "fat", "fat pigs" and other bullying and insulting names, and that candidate is rewarded for his rhetoric by receiving far greater support in the polls than any other candidate in his party, that's pretty good evidence that obesity is still "fair game" - at least among a sizable part of the population.

I suspect the reason is that the BSA does not want to be involved in any way with adults working with youth without those adults having had a criminal background check and Youth Protection Training. And the document the BSA uses to get the person's consent to the background check is the Adult Application. I suppose they could create a new form that asks for only the information needed to do the background check, but that probably overlaps a lot with the information on the Adult Application, so why bother with another form?

Welcome to the forums! Sorry you are having difficulties. I am notifying the proper authorities. If I understand your post correctly, this account is working and the other is not, so you should probably continue using this account.

I agree with John-in-KC and I would add that maybe the preparation of parents for the Boy Scout program should take place while their sons are still Cub Scouts - probably Webelos. Part of the purpose of Webelos is to get the kids ready to be Boy Scouts, and maybe there also needs to be something to get the parents ready to be parents of Boy Scouts (instead of Cub Scouts) so they know what to expect.

I think Conman2012 makes a good point about the direction this thread has taken. While we don't have (or at least, we don't enforce) a "stay on topic" rule in this forum, that doesn't mean that a thread having to do with a fairly minor aspect of the OA (such as a flag) needs to be turned into a debate on the existence of the OA.

Sorry to hear of his passing. I am changing the title of this thread to delete the word "Finally", which was a reference to him getting the Distinguished Eagle award. It is obvious to regular readers that that was written before this gentleman passed away, but newer readers might be startled to see that word in a thread that has now become about his passing, so I think it is best to remove it.

Merry Christmas to all forum members who celebrate Christmas, and their families.

If you google "climate change is a hoax" you will find plenty of people you can argue with about it. Some of them are running for president.

I think we should put a warning label on here, if anyone here is a "climate change denier" you will probably have an aneurysm or something if you watch this.

Well, it wouldn't be a trick question. They're both of Venturing age - and of course, Girl Scout age as well.

I watched about 30 minutes of it. I thought it was interesting. The president came across as pretty much a regular guy, or at least as regular as its possible to be when there is obviously a large group of assistants and Secret Service agents just out of camera range. (The president gave it away a couple of times, like when he asked someone for the password to use the camera on their phone, which he was borrowing. And I found this article in which Grylls mentions the snipers you didn't see and the helicopters you didn't hear: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/us/politics/president-obama-joining-bear-grylls-tests-survival-skills-in-alaska.html?_r=0) As for what the president carries around with him, he said that he is not permitted to have a smartphone for "security reasons." I found something on the Internet that said the White House does not consider the phones to be secure enough for the president to use. (In other words, someone with the right technology could listen to what he is saying.) I also found an article saying that some presidents have carried cash, some haven't - it's a matter of personal choice since they always have someone with them who can provide what they need. Back to the show, I thought Bear Grylls seemed a little starstruck, but that's ok. I was kind of surprised by the part about the fish, but I guess when you have no fishing equipment and you're on a tight production schedule, a fish that's already been half-eaten by a bear is the best you can do. (I guess I should also mention that I have never seen Grylls' show before, so maybe this happens all the time.)

One thing I think it makes clear is that if a boy has the option of whether to do a rank under the new or old requirements, it is the boy's choice. There have been some past comments that suggested that leaders might be making the decision that a group of boys will follow. It is supposed to be an individual choice.

I will not comment specifically on the Catholic Church, but on religious organizations in general. Without getting into a whole legal dissertation, I would think the actual practice could be relevant to determining what the actual policy is. If the practice is to regularly ignore the "policy" and admit openly gay clergy, then a court might very well find that what the religious organization says the policy is, is not actually what the policy is. But it probably would not be enough that there are some gay clergy here and there. It probably would have to be proven that the policy is generally ignored and rarely, if ever, enforced. I guess I will make one comment on the Catholic Church, and that is, from what I observe, it is not the case that the church allows openly gay people to be in leadership positions as a general rule.

berestie, welcome to the forums! I have "approved" your first post here even though it consists only of smiley faces, in the expectation that your future contributions will include some actual words.

Interesting publication there 00Eagle, thanks for pointing it out. I had never seen it before. I see a few catch-all codes, for example, it is difficult to think of a non-religious organization that could not be squeezed into code 102: Clubs, Other. So my suspicion is that this SE in Utah decided he wanted to pass the buck to National, and the code system gave him a good way to do it.

What case are you talking about? The last case I am aware of on the "BSA/gay issue" was the Dale case. Mr. Dale lost. The BSA won. (By a 5-4 vote, admittedly.) Now, if there was a lawsuit over local option, I think the religious organization involved (for example, the Catholic Church) would have a much STRONGER case than the BSA had in the Dale case.* And the BSA won. I doubt that our hypothetical new case would even get to the U.S. Supreme Court. *I have always felt that the BSA fibbed a little to the Supreme Court when it said that the BSA teaches that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Law. I know I was never taught that. And despite the misconceptions that a lot of people have about the Dale case, that finding was really the crux of the decision, because once you have an organization teaching its adherents something about its values, it's a short jump to saying that the organization's right of "expressive association", under the First Amendment, allows it to exclude persons whose presence would be contrary to those values. On the other hand, the Catholic Church (for example) would have a much simpler (and undeniable) argument about its values, beliefs and teachings, not to mention a much more solid legal basis, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

"Most people" can think whatever they want. If someone challenges the local option in court, the decision is not going to be made by "most people." It is going to be made by a judge (or judges) who will have in front of him/her/them the relevant policies of the BSA and whatever CO is being sued. Not news articles that get things half-right and are half-understood by the public, but the actual documents. He/she/them will also have in front of them the First Amendment and the case law that has been decided under it. Given all of that, I think the judge(s) would have to conclude that if the CO is a religious organization that teaches that homosexuality is a sin, that organization is able, under the Free Exercise of Religion Clause, to decline to appoint an openly gay adult to a leadership position in the BSA units for which it holds a charter. This post is not intended as legal advice, etc. etc.