NJCubScouter

So keep your Scouts out of the "pride" parades. Is this a big issue in your troop? Nobody in my troop has ever suggested participation in such a parade. It's just not something that comes up. I doubt it ever will.

KDD, that may very well be good advice for an SM to give a Scout. But isn't it ultimately the Scout's decision whether or when to go for a particular badge? Leaving aside that the Scout needs a certain number of required badges for Star, Life and of course. But advancement itself is optional. A Scout can just go to meetings, camping trips and other activities for seven years if he wants to. I have seen a couple of Scouts age out at First Class. It was their choice.

My biggest issue with Christine's situation is the "forced march" aspect. Around here, even in "group" MB situations such as summer camp or MB fairs, it is the individual Scout who decides what badge he is going to go for and when. Back when my son's troop did MB "classes" during meetings (which they no longer do), it was not compulsory. But here we have 11-year-olds being "brought in" to work on a badge that, assuming they are going for Eagle, they will have to earn sometime in the next 6 years or so. There seems to be no opportunity here for individual choice, which is supposed to be part of the MB program. As for the age-appropriateness issue of the Family Life badge at age 11, I guess it has never occurred to me. I don't think I have ever seen a Scout earn that badge before the age of 14, and usually it's more like 16 or 17. It's usually one of the last ones they get.

Under discussion by who? Who has mentioned spanking in this thread, other than you?

JASM's can be assigned to do anything you could assign an ASM to do, except that they are treated as a youth for purposes of Youth Protection, safety rules, and anything else where an adult is specifically required. They can be used for skills instructions, helping to keeping an eye on the new Scout patrol, and many other things. Our troop has only had them when there was an appropriate candidate or two, and I do not think we have ever had more than two at a time. They are usually Eagle Scouts who have previously been SPL, but there have been exceptions to this. (In another troop, long, long ago, I became JASM after my term as SPL, but I never made Eagle.) If you have SM/ASM meetings, I would say yes, it would be reasonable to invite the JASM(s), as long as they understand that it might be necessary to excuse them from situations where it would be inappropriate to have youth participating. However, I would not have the JASM at the PLC's, unless the SPL specifically wants him there. Generally there should be one "adult" at the PLC's, and that's the Scoutmaster. I think the last thing a new SPL needs, when trying to run a PLC meeting, is to have his immediate predecessor there. It needs to be clear who is in charge, and that's the SPL, with the SM there as an advisor.

Mike, I'll see what I can do to get someone to fix this.

I'm going to assume that "NU" is a typo for "NJ", meaning me. Although, funnily enough, and I'm going to guess you don't know this, "nu" is actually a word, in Yiddish, and it would actually make sense in the sentence you weren't trying to use it in, if you were mixing Yiddish and English in one sentence, which my grandmothers used to do all the time. (How's that for a sentence? Not to mention, how's that for off-topic?) In this case it would mean "So?" as in "So, you were saying?" At least the water bottles sort-of kind-of relate to what the original post was about. And maybe the company that makes the water bottles provides family benefits that cover the same-sex life partners of its employees.

Mike, are you logged in when looking for it? When I am not logged in I do not see it, but when I am logged in I do see it: "Safeguarded OA Discussions". This does not necessarily answer your question, though, because what a moderator sees when logged in may not be the same as what a non-moderator sees when logged in. Please check again and if you do not see it while you are logged in, say so here and I will make the appropriate inquiries. (As far as I know, there is nothing the moderators can do about this ourselves.)

Not that I am an expert in this, but it looks like that motor would move that boat pretty fast.

At the risk of being accused (again) of trampling on peoples' right to freedom of speech, would it be possible for someone to create a new thread for this IRS stuff, so that those of us who prefer to read about Scouting-related topics in this forum can stay away from it? Sometimes I think we need TWO "Issues and Politics" forums, one for issues that have some relationship with Scouting, and one for the occasional thread (or off-topic diversion of a thread like the one we have here) that has nothing at all to do with Scouting. I would probably stay out of the latter completely, unless I get a "flag report" that caused me to come in and trample on someone's "right" to use one of the "seven dirty words" or post advertising spam, or some other threat to peace and order.

Mine? Until 1905-1914 or so, my ancestors were living in Eastern Europe... well, first in Germany, but they were chased into Eastern Europe (perhaps around 1776 or so, I am not really sure) because they were the "wrong" religion. And then of course they were chased around some more, and subjected to various other fun stuff (pogroms, etc.) for the same reason. ("Fiddler on the Roof", though fictional, is not really fiction. It is basically the history of my family and many others in the first decade of the 20th century, right down to the guy at the end saying that when he leaves the village that all the Jews are being kicked out of, he is going to "New York, America.") I hope that answers her question.

Well... this mayoral candidate in Montpelier may have a point. It is a point about the contents of the Montpelier city ordinance on licensing of vendors, which is not what this thread is really about, but it is a point nevertheless. I went to the Montpelier web site and found this, which appears to be the "policy" (technically an ordinance, but generally speaking it is also a "policy") that she is talking about: http://www.montpelier-vt.org/upload/groups/206/files/chap09-art14.pdf I read it quickly (it is 5 pages long), but what I see there is a lists of requirements for vendors of various types, but nowhere in there do I see a non-discrimination requirement. Maybe other people want to read it and see if I missed anything. And maybe there is something elsewhere in Montpelier's ordinances. But I would think that if the city is going to enforce a non-discrimination requirement in handing out licenses to vendors, that requirement ought to be in the ordinance regarding the licensing of vendors. I also agree with her description of the BSA policy on gay adult leaders, as "bigoted," though in this forum I have tried to save that word for special occasions.

Which, according to the article, seems to be exactly what they did. So, let's see here: The local Scouts didn't do their water-selling fundraiser. The park got cleaned up. The local governing officials got to make a political point because, presumably, the majority of their voters also don't approve of discriminating against gay people. And the BSA national executives get to sit in their cushy offices in Washington, D.C., I mean New Jersey, I mean Texas collecting their bloated salaries while requiring local units to enforce a ridiculous policy regardless of whether they units want or need that policy. It amazes me that there is any dispute about who the real "bad guys" are here. (Okay, big hint here, it's the last group that I mentioned.) Well, it really doesn't amaze me. Which makes the whole thing even sadder.

If National would stop requiring local units to discriminate, the units would not need a "strategy."

I embrace no such thing, nor do I advocate any such thing. Do not put words in my mouth. I think that you, on the other, need to apologize to the entire forum for your "gas chambers" remark. As for 1983, I think you are a year off, but it doesn't matter. I'd like to know how opposing discrimination reminds you of "1984." Well, actually, I probably wouldn't, because you will probably just come up with yet another ridiculous analogy.

AZMike, none of that answers Packsaddle's question.

I wish our troop committee had a secretary. I mentioned it once to someone who has a lot more training than I do, and the person said, oh, that's outmoded, no troop has a secretary any more. But I know that's not true, and the position is listed in the troop committee guidebook, which is good enough for me. If it's the word "secretary" people have a problem with, they could call it "communications coordinator", or whatever. So what we have instead is a CC doing parts of about 3 other jobs besides CC, with predictable results, even though it is mostly the CC's choice to do it this way.

"Last post" in the main forum listing seems to be running behind. What it shows as the last post in Issues and Politics is not the most recent, by several hours. I have not checked the other forums.

Does anyone else besides me think it is significant that the council did not actually ban the Scouts from doing anything? They asked the local unit leaders to discuss the subject, and instead the Scouts withdrew from the event entirely. That does not seem like the best way to have dealt with the issue. The comments of the council SE in Vermont are also interesting. He is basically saying, yes, National is being stupid and is forcing a bad policy on us, which an overwhelming majority of Vermont Scouters oppose, and it is hurting Scouting here, but I have to go along in order to keep my job, so what do you want from me? Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the policy.

Yes, AZMike, I'd be curious to see your answer to Packsaddle's question as well.