NJCubScouter

That WAS true until three days ago. Or to be more precise, it was true from Jan. 1, 2014 through Feb. 28, 2015. It's no longer true. Now an 18 year old in a traditional BSA program, whether "youth" or "adult", must meet "adult membership standards" - BSA code-speak for avowedly heterosexual. There was no elephant - there was an inconsistency, which has now been eliminated. Not in the way I would have done it, of course.

I suppose I could, but since the only time I ever listen to the radio is while I am driving to or from work, opening up a book would probably not be my best option.

Oh, there's always hope. Even when the shooting starts, there is hope that it will end sooner rather than later. And yesterday, I believe, the Congress showed that it actually can produce a result even when all hope seemed to be lost. (This is about the Homeland Security funding, and I realize some here might disagree that the right result was reached. I know I heard a lot of screaming about it from Mark Levin on the radio last night. Why I sometimes listen to someone who I disagree with about 95 percent of the time, I'm not sure. Well, part of it is that the other talk stations are worse, and on the FM dial, I can only listen to "More than a Feeling" and "Hotel California" and "Suite Judy Blue Eyes" so many thousands of times, you know?)

For whatever reason QM is always a popular position in our troop. In fact I recall two kids having a little bit of a feud because they both wanted to be QM. Ah, the things teenagers can find to be angry at each other about...

JewishScout, first of all, welcome to the forums. Interesting account name you have there. I used to be a Jewish Scout myself. (That was so long ago, my patrol leader was Moses. Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.) Now I am a Jewish Scouter. (Not as a formal title of course; just a Scouter who happens to be Jewish.) I just want to make sure you are aware that you have "resurrected" an old thread here. Which is fine, but some people may have different reactions to it, and if there is not a lot of commentary in response to yours, that may be one reason. This thread was started in 2008, and the last post (before yours) was in 2012. In the first couple of pages I see some names of people who have not posted in this forum in a long, long time. I have not looked at the later pages; who knows, I may be in there somewhere myself. So, as I said, there may or may not be interest in discussing this again. And again, welcome, and I hope you will comment in some of our more recently-started discussions.

If that's the case, the "brief description" should say so, and since it now seems there are "plans that have been outlined", attach the plans. Or describe the plans if they have not yet been committed to paper. We're planting about 10 or more trees. And/or about 15 or more bushes. So if the final writeup shows 8 trees or 13 bushes, no problem. If it turns out to be 2 trees and/or 4 bushes, that's a significant change in the project that gets reviewed at the EBOR, and hopefully is compensated for by something else. And/or: We are levelling out the area all around the church, which after the construction has piles of dirt that we're redistributing, and we're planting (whatever we're planting.) And we're going to create two flower gardens, one on either side of the church. We (now speaking in the voice of the troop committee or district advancement committee) don't need to know the dimensions yet. We don't need to know how many flowers. We just need SOMETHING so we can say there is a description that shows that this project will allow the Scout to demonstrate planning and leadership commensurate with the requirement. I don't think this is adding to the requirements. The requirement says to use the workbook. The workbook asks for a "brief description," and what I outline above is all within the scope of a brief description. As I said before, "landscaping" by itself is not a description, it's just an idea. But it turns out there isn't really a problem, because as you say, there IS a plan. It just hasn't been described in the first draft of the workbook. Make that change, and whatever other changes go with it, get your signatures, set up a date, recruit your work crews, and start working. (And hopefully this isn't being done in the middle of a very snowy and very cold winter. We just went through a project like that, which will henceforth be known as the Frozen Tundra Project.) Maybe this is influenced by the profession I am in, but no, one does not have to assume that. If there's been an extensive dialogue, great. That gives the Scout plenty of information to sum up in three or four sentences, which is all there is room for in the box anyway. We don't need to know the number of nails and screws. But somewhere between "landscaping" and the number of nails and screws is the happy medium that I think the workbook is asking for.

Compared to mine, that seems to be true.

click, I'm pleased to hear that was the result.

standerson, I hope you are still reading this. Everybody here is just trying to help. Some here have been through experiences like this and are just trying to share what they have seen work and not work. But what works for one person may not work best for another. Nobody here (except you) knows your daughter and what she will and won't respond to. I cannot really add anything substantive. I will just wish you and your daughter the best in getting through this.

I think that what Seattle Pioneer Is suggesting is that our current situation is better than having a Second Civil War. I would have to agree. But I would also hope that there is, at least, a third choice that is better than both of the others. I think there is.

Everybody knows Scouter99 was being sarcastic, right? And I had to look up "cis-male." Good grief. I guess I don't keep up with the radical-left lingo as well as Scouter99 does.

BP, I know, the sky is falling. With you the sky is always falling. As we all know, I have my own issues with National, and some of them overlap with yours. The BSA's membership issues have a lot of different causes. Some come from within, some from societal issues. But I really don't think that a couple of optional technology programs are causing the problems. As others have said, the outdoor emphasis is still there. Someone can say it, but that does not make it true. The Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class requirements all include going on camping trips, and Camping is an Eagle-required merit badge. For several years in the 1970's, the statement was technically true, though I am not convinced that there were any significant number of Scouts that made Eagle without going camping.

The way our government is set up under the Constitution makes it unlikely that a new party could come out of nowhere and take over. And without getting into the entire history of the pre-Civil War period, it's not really accurate to say the Republican Party "came out of nowhere." A large part of the story was the breakup of the Whig Party into northern and southern factions which meant the party could not really compete on a national level. The southern Whigs basically became Democrats and the northern Whigs (including some who had left politics for awhile as the party was breaking up, and I think Abraham Lincoln was one of them) joined with some smaller anti-slavery and anti-expansion-of-slavery parties to form the Republicans. If a new major party were to form today, I think it would have to be the result of something similar - the breakup of one of the existing parties. If I had to guess, it would probably be the Republican party breaking up into a more conservative party and a less conservative party. But again, it's not likely to happen because the most likely result of such a split would be that the Democrats would get elected to everything. That's because we have a "winner take all" system for both the presidency and seats in Congress. We could have a system like Israel does, where there are 30-something parties and there are new parties, merged parties and de-merged parties at every election, but I don't think most people would like it.

wdfa89, you make a good point, I guess I was speaking a little too generically. I am really speaking of more recent years - say the past 100 years. And I am sure you can find examples of partisan bitterness in those years as well. But I am talking about an overall trend. I don't think it can be denied that the partisan/ideological divide today is much more serious, bitter and potentially dangerous, than it was in (say) the 1950's and 60's. I think there used to be more of a general sense that "we're all Americans," that doesn't exist as much today. Today I think there is more of a sense of "if you don't agree with me, you're not really an American."

Yes, let's be done with the name calling.

That is true, but until fairly recently government was carried out, in general, without nearly as much polarization and bitterness and demonization of the other side that we see today. There has always been partisanship, but the parties were at least talking to each other. Senators would debate a bill on one side or the other and go out for a drink together afterward. These days, a Republican (in particular) who shows any sign of working with Democrats is basically called a traitor and can essentially give up on any thought of advancement. I don't think John McCain would get the Republican nomination today, 6 years after he actually did. Or if he did get the nomination, he would be at a huge disadvantage in the general election (which is what actually happened to McCain... AND Romney... and it has probably already sunk Chris Christie (who is no slouch in the partisanship game himself)... and I already see it starting to happen to Jeb Bush.) And I guess I probably just pushed this over the line where I have to move it to Issues and Politics... though it was already leaning heavily in that direction anyway. Just a helpful hint for the future (to the original poster), if you post a list of people that have "D"s and "R"s next to their name, it probably does not belong in the open program discussion section.

I agree to a large degree with SMMathew. If there really are "Boy Scout troops" that go camping twice a year and spend 90 percent of their time on STEM, the fault really lies with those troops and their leaders. They are masquerading as one program while actually running another, which is not sanctioned by National. The fault does not lie with National's efforts to provide some STEM content as an add-on to the program, which to my knowledge consists of that STEM/Nova award and some non-required merit badges. And SMMathew, if you are somehow surprised that BadenP is exhibiting a "cynical and pessimistic view of the BSA's motives"... well, you are still fairly new to the forums. All I'll say is, don't be surprised. And to be fair, some of the rest of us also sometimes express a viewpoint about National's motives that is somewhat cynical and somewhat pessimistic, but a few posters lead the way in that regard. Did I say that diplomatically enough?

The one I see on there from my state is Chris Smith, who has been in the House since 1981 (longer than anyone else from NJ.) I am not in his district and would not be voting for him if I was. I disagree with him on many issues. But I have to say that as politicians go, he is not so bad. He is known for very conservative positions on "social issues" but is a moderate on some other things. His "score" from the American Conservative Union is 60 percent, so I guess he would be considered a moderate-to-conservative, on their scale at least. I have a feeling that his somewhat moderate image and the fact that he is willing to work with Democrats is the reason why, after almost 35 years there, he has never been part of the Republican leadership in the House. At one time he was chairman of the Veteran's Affairs Committee but he bucked the Republican leadership too many times (such as by voting to spend more money on veterans' programs) and was bounced off the committee entirely. Now, with the Republicans in control again, by seniority he should be chairing a major committee, but chairs only a subcommittee. He is really part of the "old style" in Congress where people from different parties actually worked together to produce results for the country, rather than being in bitterly opposed partisan camps and not talking to each other. So, among the Eagles in Congress, I think you could find a lot worse than Chris Smith, very easily. I see Louie Gohmert on the list, I would start there.

Okay, let's stick with that. So upon turning 18, they would have to register as an Assistant Scoutmaster, right? They cannot still be a youth member of the troop. The reason I asked is that if they need to be an ASM to remain in the OA, the new requirements only affect them to a limited degree. In order to be an ASM, they have already submitted an adult membership application, gone through the criminal background check and taken youth protection training. They must also satisfy "adult membership standards," and we all know what that means. I suppose there will still be the anomoly that they "count" for purposes of two-deep leadership while with the troop, but not in OA lodge activities... but that is not affected by this new policy.

Pun alert.

I agree with fred, and also with the comments that the recent changes have gone a little too far. I have not seen candidates trying to "game" the system through vague descriptions, but I have seen some "brief descriptions" that are inadequate, mainly in the ways fred mentions: No indication of how many benches (or whatevers), how big the area to be improved, etc. The Scout usually KNOWS these things by the time the proposal gets to the troop committee for approval, but it doesn't say to put them in, so some Scouts don't. I think the word "briefly" is so vague that it confuses people. In our troop, when we find that the description is too ambiguous, we strongly suggest that some details (the "metrics" as you call them) be added. (Whether this is permissible or not, I'm not sure, but that's what we do.) I think the question should be changed to take out the word "briefly" and request the "metrics" though I am not sure how that should be worded. I think it needs to be made clear that what is being requested in that section does NOT include details of the PLAN for the project, but rather a description of the "project" itself. In other words, WHAT is going to be done, not HOW it is going to be done - which is asked for to some degree in later questions in the Proposal section, and is of course the focus of the Plan section, to be completed after the Proposal is approved.

Reminds me of the scene from one of the Indiana Jones movies - the one with Sean Connery. They are all looking over the cliff at where Indiana has crashed to his death - including Indiana, who didn't actually go over the cliff and doesn't know they all think he's dead. That link didn't really work, by the way. I got part of the page but could not read the article.