NJCubScouter

EagleScout441, I believe it is very difficult to determine that EVERY Scout is meeting the requirement if you have a group discussion. Say for example you have five Scouts, and you are in a group discussion of requirement 1 - discuss the history of chess. Boys 1, 2 and 3 say something about the history of chess, and together they've covered everything in the pamphlet, everything they've been "taught" on the subject, and everything a Scout-aged person might be expected to know. Scouts 4 and 5 realize this, and basically are left with a choice of repeating what they've just heard, which they'd rather not do because they would feel silly, or not saying anything. Even if they do say something, they aren't really contributing to the discussion, they are just being parrots. So do they not pass? I'm not sure what the right answer is. My suggestion (and that of the BSA, I believe) is to avoid that problem, by having the discussions (at the stage of PASSING the MB requirements) be one on one. Sure, it gets a little boring for the counselor to hear mostly the same answers over and over and over, but that's part of what we sign up for as adult leaders. I for one would rather do it that way because I can then feel confident that each Scout is really passing each requirement.

quazse, who are you responding to?

JoeBob, fortunately, the requirement for those items (the movements of pieces, and en passant) says "demonstrate", not "explain" or "describe" or "discuss." Specifically it says "Demonstrate to your counselor that you know each of the following." (Requirement 3.) If I were a Chess MB counselor (which I will never be, as I just dabble in the game; I have never even heard of a couple of the terms in Requirement 5b, and as for some of the others I am not sure what they are, though I am guessing I have used some of them without even knowing their names; so in other words as things stand I would not be able to earn the badge without further study, much less be a counselor), I would interpret that to mean that the Scout needs to BOTH show me, on a chess board, how the piece moves or how the capture works, etc. and explain it to me. In order for him to do that effectively, both those things really have to happen at the same time. In other words, we're together, with a chess board and pieces, and he's telling me the rule and demonstrating it with the pieces. A worksheet won't do it, but that's because the specific requirement is worded the way it is. For other requirements a worksheet will be ok. (By the way, I am not saying that the BSA has EVERY requirement of EVERY badge in the right category of explain/discuss/demonstrate etc., in fact I see a couple in the Chess MB that I might change. But the job of the counselor is to make sure the requirements are met as written.)

I agree with SR540Beaver on the EDGE method. I think it was created just to make sure that the boys (and adults) don't forget a step in the teaching process. Any good teaching method will incorporate those steps regardless of whether you are thinking about the separate elements as you teach. It's just a double-check, in my opinion.

Ouch. I am not a Scoutmaster, but otherwise, well, ouch. And I do drink coffee. (Actually, the BSA weight chart says I squeak in under the wire by a few pounds, or at least it did the last time I looked at it, but my doctor's chart says I am still "obese" by about 20 pounds or so. Not as much as I used to be, though.)

Here is my opinion about worksheets and notes for merit badges. First of all, it depends on what the requirement is. Nobody should be accepting written material for "demonstrate" or "show", because those things cannot be done with words alone, regardless of whether the words are written or oral. If the requirement is to "explain" or "describe" I think that is a different story. If the Scout explains or describes the subject matter in writing, I would accept that, but it has to be in his own words. So a worksheet written out by the Scout would be ok with me. But "notes", meaning notes taken by the Scout while the instructor or counselor is speaking (which, as I understand this thread, is accepted by the troop in question), would not be acceptable to me. That would just be turning my (assuming I'm the counselor) words back in to me. That is not an explanation or a description BY THE SCOUT. Now, one might respond that the Scout could just take his notes of my statement and write the answer on the worksheet based on the notes. I'm ok with that. In doing that, the Scout is inevitably going to gain (and pass along to me) at least some understanding of the subject matter. He first has to figure out which statements, in his notes, respond to which question. He then has to adapt the words in his notes to the format of the question. He then has to write the answer. Even in that limited process, learning is going on, and he is explaining or describing what he is supposed to explain or describe. In my opinion, anyway. "Discuss" is a little different, although I just looked at the requirements for two merit badges at random, Cit in the Community and Chess (ok, that one wasn't really at random), and it seems to me that the BSA sometimes uses "explain" and "discuss" interchangeably, which they shouldn't. "Explain" means you are telling me something - it could be a one-way communication and still meet the requirement (which is why I would accept a written answer.) "Discuss" means that you and I are talking to each other about the subject -- it's a two-way communication. In the case of a merit badge (or First Class requirement number 5 (I think), for which I am the designated "discusser" in my troop) I want the Scout to tell me what he knows about the subject, then I will ask him some questions designed to make him think about it some more, and see what more he knows, then I will usually tell him some things about the subject that he may not know. This may prompt him to say things back to me about the subject. In other words, a discussion. The reason for "discuss" rather than "explain" is (or should be) that the Scout can gain something from what I know about the subject. Now, does that mean the "discussion" can be all me? No. My expectation is that the Scout will do MOST of the talking, but there have been some discussions for the First Class requirement in which I have probably done the majority of the talking, and as long as the Scout is contributing significantly to the conversation, I believe he has succeeded in "discussing" it. This CANNOT be completed solely with a worksheet. PART of it can be. The Scout can write down what he knows on the worksheet, then give it to me, and we then talk about it, and I do my part of the requirement, and he does the rest of his part by answering my questions and adding whatever he has to add. It may be that there is some training or guidance from the BSA on what I have discussed (ha ha) above, but I don't know what it is. Hopefully it is something close to what I think it should be.

RememberSchiff, regardless of who the "members of the corporation" are (and I'm fairly sure that does not include you or me), notice it says "the whole property of the corporation", emphasis on the word "whole." The way I understand that language, it does not mean a sale of one piece of property (like Schiff), or even some pieces of property, that means a sale (or other "disposition") of ALL of the property of the corporation. That would occur if the BSA was essentially "going out of business" and selling ALL of its property to some other entity. THAT would require a majority vote of the "members", whoever they may be. It would probably also mean that the top brass at National lose their hundreds-of-thousands-a-year salaries, so I don't think you will be seeing it happening any day soon.

You cannot be registered as both CC and ASM, and that shouldn't be done even "unofficially", for various reasons. That does not stop the CC from going on camping trips as an adult leader, and in my experience, committee members (including CC's) who attend camping trips end up being (unofficial) acting ASM's without the title, for that trip. But PLANNING for the CC to be an unofficial ASM is not a good idea. As for Advancement Chair (or Advancement Coordinator, I believe BSA literature uses both), that is not a separate registered position. It is a role filled by one of the MC's (committee members.) (That is my current position in the troop of which my son was once a member.) I do not know of anything that says that the CC CANNOT fill one of the committee roles, but it is probably discouraged. I would discourage it, except in a very small troop, and probably even then. There is enough for the CC to do. I have seen CC's who also did one of the committee roles (mostly activity/camping chair), and one or the other job, or both, inevitably suffer.

I agree with jblake. There have always been many "career" oriented MB's, it's just that the subjects and variety within those subjects has shifted as the economy and society have changed. In my first Scout Handbook (the 1965 edition I believe) there were still many agricultural merit badges, now there are very few, but a growing number of technology-related badges. If anything, the career- and hobby-type merit badges have been DE-emphasized, because they are not Eagle-required. There has been a steady increase in the number of MB's required for Eagle. When I first became a Scout, I think it was 10, which meant that if you earned Eagle, you had a minimum of 11 non-required MB's. (I am ignoring the time period in which there were 24 MB's for Eagle, I do not recall what the required vs. non-required breakdown was. Maybe I have put it out of my mind because that is the "era" in which I aged out as a Life Scout.) As of the beginning of next year, there will be 13 required MB's (not counting the options for some.) That means a Scout could become Eagle with 8 NON-required MB's. Since our Scouts always earn a number of the "craft" badges at summer camp (leatherwork, basketry, etc.), there is less and less incentive to do more than a couple of the "career" badges. And yes, I understand that many Eagles earn more than 21 MB's, sometimes a lot more, but I think the shift in emphasis away from the non-required badges, especially the ones you can't get at summer camp (like most of the career badges), is a real thing.

David Lory Vanderbeek... according to Wikipedia he is an independent candidate for Governor. Every once in awhile there is an independent candidate who has a realistic chance of winning (remember Jesse Ventura), but this guy does not seem to be one of them. Wikipedia also says that in 2012 he ran in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate as one of six candidates. It lists the results for the other five candidates but not for him, which I presume means he came in last -- apparently with LESS THAN 0.5 percent of the vote, because that is what the fifth place guy got. And the one-line description of the fifth-place guy is "sanitation worker and perennial candidate" -- and Vanderbeek got less votes than he did. All of which adds up to, as TwoCubDad says, a wingnut with a web site (and enough petition signatures to get on a ballot, but that's about it.)

Personally I think it is better if memorials like this are on private property and paid for by privately donated funds. That way it is up to those sponsoring and funding the project to decide what symbols to include or exclude, and exactly what and who are being memorialized. (I actually would make an exception for the one instance mentioned by jblake, I think it would be appropriate for the U.S. government to sponsor memorials for Native Americans, in light of the role of the U.S. government in there being something to memorialize in the first place.) I did a little bit more research on the Ohio memorial, and found this article, http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...-approval.html, which states that the memorial itself is being paid for by private funds ($2 million worth) but that the site preparation costs (about $300,000) are being paid for by the state of Ohio. The site is on state property. I believe that most memorials of this nature are completely private, though I have no actual sources to back that up. The article I linked to does say that this project will make Ohio the first state with a Holocaust memorial "at its Capitol", which is interesting, but there could still be such memorials supported by federal or local government funds, or by state funds in different locations. It is just my impression that the majority of these kinds of memorials are privately funded and on private property. And as I said above, if you have a private memorial (though open to the public), the private sponsoring organization gets to decide what the memorial is about, who gets mentioned on it, and what symbols (religious or otherwise) are appropriate. As soon as public property or public funding comes into it, the debate is thrown open to everybody, at least those within the jurisdiction that is sponsoring the memorial. I suppose it may be relevant at this point to mention that I am Jewish and that my family was directly and severely impacted by the Holocaust.

I agree with the suggestion that you contact your District Executive and ask for clarification on exactly who needs to have which training courses in order for you to receive your charter, and what arrangements can be made to get that done in the fastest and most convenient manner for you and your volunteers. As for "charter training", I have never heard of it. Is it training for new chartered units, or for how to do rechartering, or both, or something else? As for the person at council mentioning JTE, I think it's kind of unreasonable for anybody to be talking to you about JTE before you even have a charter. You can't "journey" anywhere without a charter.

My vote is against polls like this. I didn't vote. But it does raise a point, when we talk about "the BSA" like this, I have to ask, "which one?" Several years ago I read an article that made the point that there are really two BSA's. There are the units, where Scouting actually gets done, and there is the actual corporation BSA, which can be as much of a hindrance as a help, and gets involved with issues it shouldn't get involved in. Or to put it another way, I make the distinction between Scouting as a whole, which I think is great, and the people who are, currently, temporarily, in charge of making decisions at the National level, many of which, in my opinion, are not so great.

Jblake: I understand that you don't like what President Obama says and does. What I was questioning was your implication that he isn't allowed to talk at all.

Account, that distinction - two adult humans vs. any other kind of relationship - is so clear to me and you, it amazes me that it isn't clear to everybody else. Well, it doesn't really amaze me.

Your guess is correct. Here is the entire passage:

Nobody would have been "let in" yet, the policy change takes effect at the end of the year.

I don't see anyone in this thread who seems upset, with the possible exception of you, skeptic

jblake, the problem is that the four boxes are meaningless without a universal agreement as to the nature of God (and specifically as a judgmental God who will punish nonbelievers after they die), and such an agreement does not exist.

Well, he specifically said he was NOT an atheist, but he said he WAS an agnostic. He also referred to "God" but made it clear he did not believe in the God described in the Bible, nor did he believe in prayer. So for whatever it's worth, I don't think he would have been at your meetings.

There really isn't enough information in the article to tell whether the camp director actually tried all available alternatives before shooting the bear. But sometimes it does come down to people or the bear, although that showdown can often be avoided if the people had been more careful in the first place -- which seems to have been the case here. I have read several articles about human-bear interactions in northwestern New Jersey (where there are still a lot of wooded areas and many Boy Scout camps, and used to be a lot more) and there have been a number of instances in which bears "had to" be dealt with in this manner. It always seems that food, left by humans where bears can get at it, is the crucial element. Whether it's on a table on a porch, or on the ground, or in a flimsy garbage bag outside that is not properly protected, the bear is going to decide that this is where the restaurant is, and isn't going to go away. This tends to produce an unhappy ending for the bear, who while he/she may possess formidable strength, does not own a gun, or know someone who does. I have never had a bear actually enter a campsite while I was there, but I have seen them in camp generally, and yes, that was in New Jersey. In fact, there was one particular camp where my council always has its Cub Scout weekend family camping trips, and not once but twice, we who arrived on Friday afternoon to set things up were greeted by a large black bear hanging out either on the parade ground right in the middle of camp, or in the woods nearby. It really shouldn't have been a surprise -- after all, this was in the fall or spring, and nobody had been camping there during the week, and it was natural that a bear would wander in with nobody there to bother him, to go fishing in the lake, or whatever. Once the arriving people had made enough noise and commotion (often directed at the bear itself, though from a safe distance), the bear decided to go check things out at the next lake over. As soon as the bear figured out we weren't feeding it, he/she wanted nothing to do with us or our camp. But these incidents did sort of underline that you don't leave food lying around, which is what Scouts camping in bear country are taught anyway.

Actually there are a few dozen (at least) more options than that. I suspect the "outcome" of most of them would be the same as your # 3 or some variation thereof. As for your # 2, are you saying that you are moral and ethical because you are afraid of being punished after you die if you don't? As opposed to, it just being the right way to behave? I have known plenty of moral/ethical people who either don't believe in God, or who do believe in God but don't think God hands out punishments (or rewards), and/or don't think there is an afterlife.

Northwestpascout, first of all, welcome to the forums! Second of all, it sounds like you are complaining about wearing a Scout uniform at a Scout Jamboree. You're just kidding about that part, right? A little joke that this old man isn't getting? I hope you (and everybody else) has a good time at the Jamboree. I wish I could be there.

I get those kinds of "invitations" all the time, unfortunately it is almost standard practice in the legal profession. "Save the date for the retirement dinner of Judge So-and-So!" and then 2 weeks later "You are cordially invited to the retirement dinner for Judge So-and-So ($90 for members of the county bar association, $100 for non-members.)" I'm not making up the prices, either.