NJCubScouter

In addition to the overall issue, what concerns me about these various cases (perhaps somewhat selfishly) is, which of these cases is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back with my troop's CO and causes them to send us elsewhere? Possibly with some dispute over what we get to "take with us", since legally they own everything. They are a church that (while their national organization seems to be divided on the issue) seems to lean heavily toward the "welcoming" side. I know that when the Dale case was decided (before my time with the troop) there was some discussion and at least one tense meeting and it looked like the church might withdraw from being a CO. That did not happen, but now, with the publicity of each succeeding case adding to the previous one, I think that at some point the leaders of the local church may eventually end up saying, we've had enough of this, and we can no longer be the home of a unit of an organization that does not share our beliefs. We would find a new CO, but I'd really rather not have to do that.

Is there any number in there that you didn't just make up? I mean, you could be right, you could be wrong. But you don't know.

I don't think ads influence my vote. Right now it is "Romney v. Obama, Vote Here Now!" But I suspect that if I clicked on it, it would try to influence my "vote." I plan to vote on Nov. 6 at my local school, not now online. As for Lisabob's comment, here in New Jersey we do not have "ballot initiatives", at least not at the state level. There are no statewide referendums unless the legislature puts them on the ballot. This year I think the only two are a bond issue to provide funds for new facilities and colleges (wouldn't mind seeing ads for that one, I hope it passes) and a constitutional amendment to require judges to pay for a portion of their health insurance premiums just as all other public employees in the state (including teachers and municipal workers) now have to. The thing about the judges is a long story, and I'm guessing that most of you don't really want a lesson on the deep, dark recesses of New Jersey constitutional law.

I came across this and thought it was kind of cool. It was also nice to see an article that mentions Scouting but contains no controversy -- unless you count the fact that if this happened today, the Scout might be reprimanded for not "leaving no trace". http://tinyurl.com/927ogtu (No way was that link going to work on here.) Here is the first part of the article, there is more at the link (including photos of the note itself and of the Scout in younger days and today): Forty years after he left a note on a mountain top deep in the Sierra Nevada backcountry, asking its finder to write him, Tim Taylor has gotten his wish. Taylor, who was raised in La Caada Flintridge, was hiking solo in Sequoia National Park in August 1972 his Boy Scout troop bivouacked a short distance away when he put a pencil to a lined sheet of paper: Tim Taylor climbed to this peak, Thursday, August 17, 1972. Age 13 yrs. Anyone finding this note please write. Taylor placed the note in a metal film canister and left it on the 12,000-foot peak before rejoining his troop for trout fishing in a nearby lake. Last month, another intrepid hiker, Larry Wright, 69, of Oakland, found the metal canister with the note inside. He sought out Taylor, and on Monday, Wright and now-San Diego County Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor spoke about their visits separated by 40 years to the rugged region known as the Great Western Divide. Taylor said Monday that he vividly remembers leaving the note during a rare rest day on Boy Scout Troop 502s 50-mile backpacking trip through the Sierra. We had nowhere to go that day, so I woke up and I looked up and said, I think Ill climb that mountain, he said. Taylor said he wanted to climb the peak precisely because it wasnt named on his Boy Scouts-provided topographic map a chance to make his mark. I could see it was unnamed, and that was part of the attraction, he said. There was no evidence that anybody had ever been there.

I also am getting the message "Reported Attack Site!" I do not have Norton, I believe the message is coming from Firefox itself. I had to go past a big warning screen to even get here. I hope I made the right decision. Mike, as for "We don't want younger men...we want YOU!", I first saw that one several weeks ago and posted about it in Issue and Politics, I believe. It is just an ad, although I suppose you (or at least I) could classify it as "malware" (meaning bad ware) in the sense that it is one more reminder that I am no longer a "younger man." I agree with you that it is kind of odd to see that kind of ad on a Scouting site, but as has been explained in the past, the site owner has nothing to do with the ad selection. I was also told by someone in this forum that I was getting that ad because of sites I have visited, but I really don't think so. I don't go on dating sites, much less upper-middle-aged women looking for upper-middle-aged men. Hmm, if my wife saw that last sentence it might create some misunderstanding. I don't go on dating sites.

On the subject of the "three Citizenships" and why they are all required, in the past I have discussed my "pet theory" which I call the "good idea syndrome." In my opinion, when it comes to advancement (and other recognitions) the BSA has a tendency to adopt every good idea that comes along, without really looking at the big picture and deciding whether there are just too many requirements. Taken by themselves, having required merit badges for Citizenship in the Nation, World and Community are all good ideas. Taken by themselves, having required MB's for Communications, Family Life and Personal Management are also good ideas. But is it really a good idea to have SIX required merit badges that do not really involve the outdoor program and, to one extent or another, are "classroom badges"? (Some might not think Family Life belongs on that list, but some might also think that Emergency Prep and/or Environmental Science do belong on that list.) The BSA never seems to be able to take a good look at the list and make the difficult decision that even though all of these required badges are a good idea, one or two of them should be removed and replaced by, say, Cooking, or not replaced at all. (There is no law saying there have to be 12 required MB's, when I was a Scout there were 11, and in reading various lists in the past, I think that even in the "modern era" the number has been as low as 10.) If I had to pick one to take off the list, the first one probably would be Family Life, and the second would probably be Citizenship in the World. I am pretty sure neither are going to be removed. The good idea syndrome also affects the lower ranks, if you look at some of the things that have been added over the past 10 years, and I don't believe anything has been removed. I really think they need to take a sharp pencil to the requirements for T, 2C and 1C and remove maybe one or two from each one. Again, it won't happen -- because each of the requirements, by itself, is a "good idea."

I always found that stuff about Harry Potter and Satanism pretty funny. Harry was the least evil witch in the dorm. Sometimes he was blinded by his own view of what was right, sometimes he didn't listen to good advice, and sometimes he was tempted to do bad things in pursuit of his ultimate goals, which were righteous. Like real people, in other words. I think that's a big reason the books were so popular among "kids of all ages." The "witchcraft" was just a device to make it all more interesting, so it wasn't just a series of books about good and bad people in some suburb somewhere.

I've never seen anyone read to Cubs or Scouts on a camping trip. Interesting idea for the Cubs. On Boy Scout camping trips I have seen the boys bring their own books. No, not what you may be thinking. There was one Scout (now in college) who brought things like computer programming books on weekend camping trips. Takes all kinds, right? But presumably now he is a whiz at computer programming because of the time spent in his tent reading. And then there are the Harry Potter books (speaking of spinning off from the other thread.) It seems that for a few years, the sequels were hitting the bookstores in July, right before summer camp (like sometimes 48 hours before departure) and and I saw more than one of those sequels at camp. At my son's last summer camp his "free time" reading material was restricted to the maps and things he needed to plan his Eagle project, which he had to spend the rest of the summer planning.

I think the "zones which have a particular historic or architectural value" is probably the key to the thing in Rome. The part about encampments or shelters probably comes down to "Don't be homeless in front of the tourists!" Kind of the way New York City cleared all the peep shows, dirty book stores, etc. out of Times Square in order to make it more family-friendly for the tourists some years back. I'm not sure about the part about stopping to eat and drink, though. A person's gotta eat. Maybe they don't allow hot dog stands, food trucks etc. in historic districts in Rome?

Harry Potter? Even with all the witchcraft, Beavah? Just kidding, of course. The "witchcraft" in the Harry Potter books isn't really "witchcraft" as defined by any religion, including Wicca. Not to mention that all the little witches and warlocks celebrate Christmas. Back at the time the books were coming out and were creating some controversy, I even heard some commentators comparing the story of Harry Potter to that of Jesus Christ, though that is probably beyond the scope of this discussion... Awhile back we had some local controversy over a book named "Julie of the Wolves", which I had never heard of, but apparently it has been controversial elsewhere as well, as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_of_the_Wolves#Reception That Wikipedia article describes the nature of the controversy. It really came down to a question of whether one particular scene in the book was appropriate for the grade levels in which the book was included in the curriculum.

I was wondering the same thing as Nike: This Scout is going to have a problem with the dates on his Eagle application. That's assuming that they actually check them. I suppose this particular parent might not be above altering the dates, but if they are checked against National's records there would still be a problem. As for how to handle this with Scouts in a different unit (assuming they even know about it) I think others have covered it.

"Of course", where is my Advancement Coordinator patch? Not that I want or need one, but by the logic of that article, there should be one. The "Troop Committee" patch is enough.

Outdoors says: I find it truly amazing that every time I make a post on these forums that implies that a Boy Scouts should get outdoors to camp, hike, canoe, fish and just simply be outdoors people here immediately jump all over me. Since I was the only person to respond to the post in question, I'll assume you were talking about me. I didn't "jump all over you." I questioned one specific statement that you made, which I still question. You have pointed out more activities that should be part of a troop's outdoor program that relate to merit badges, but I still think the phrase "just by participating" is an exaggeration. Participating in a program that includes all the things you mention will fulfill some requirements of some merit badges, and will provide the "instruction" (or whatever you wish to call it) and practicing of skills necessary to pass other requirements. I don't think there are many people in this forum who would disagree with your belief that an active outdoor program is a good thing. I certainly don't disagree with it. You seem to have sort of a "chip on your shoulder" about it, and I don't understand why.

Maybe the moderators or Scouter-Terry can change the title of the sub-forum (under Open Discussion) from 2010 Jamboree to 2013 Jamboree. That seems to have been done once already. That sub-forum actually started in 2003, and the threads at the beginning discuss the 2005 Jamboree, so presumably that was the title. When the 2005 Jamboree was over the threads started changing to discuss the 2010 Jamboree, so presumably the title was changed to that at some point. And there are already threads in there discussing 2013, so all they really have to do is change the forum title.

Outdoors says: If a unit has a proper yearly program in place consisting of a true outdoor program then many MBs will be EARNED by the boys just by participating in the troop's events. "Many"? Which ones? Camping, Cooking and Swimming, presumably. Probably First Aid (leaving aside whether that is considered an "outdoor" badge or not.) That's four so far, which I don't consider "many". Which others? And then there is "just by participating." That may be a bit of an exaggeration in most cases. It is mostly true for the T-2-1 requirements. If a Scout passes a T-2-1 requirement while participating in a camping trip, for example, and an older Scout or an adult leader sees him pass the requirement, it can be signed off right then and there, and he's passed the requirement. But what if an MB requirement says "Demonstrate for your counselor..." or "Show your counselor"? Is the MB counselor there on the camping trip? Maybe sometimes, but usually not. There are some requirements that do not have to be done in front of a counselor, such as the 20 nights camping for Camping MB, and that obviously IS done "just by participating." I am not sure how many of those there are, though.

So, Peregrinator, in other words, if you form a new Scouting organization in France, and call it "Scouts", it seems like the national equivalent of the BSA does NOT immediately threaten to sue you. That seems like a big difference right there. It also seems like, if your new Scouting organization gets big enough, you can become a member of the national "federation" of Scouting. Another big difference. Here in the U.S. we have one national organization that has a monopoly on the words "Scouts" and "Scouting" (at least as applied to males) and no "umbrella" organization that can accommodate separate organizations that do some things differently. If we did, that might solve part of the problem, though I think local option would solve it a lot more easily.

RememberSchiff, those sound pretty good, though I would hope that they are not all "required" in every case and that they are not all weighted equally. For example, if the national security (meaning, OUR national security) interest involved is really, really "vital" (not sure how you would define that), I don't really care so much whether there is international support, broad or otherwise. On the other hand, threats to other countries can be enough of a threat to OUR interests to justify action. Also, what do you do if it is deemed absolutely essential to our national security to take military action, but there is substantial opposition to it among the American people? And that can cut both ways -- for example, it could be argued that the U.S. should have gotten more directly involved in World War II in Europe before Pearl Harbor, but there was too much domestic opposition to do so. Pchadbo makes some good points about "exit strategy" as well. As for "I know it when I see it," with credit given to Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_i_see_it I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.

Pack, I think the "give Romney a chance" viewpoint would sound better if he were a lot more specific about what he would actually do (about the economy in particular) if he were elected. Otherwise, the easy answer to "give him a chance" is, a chance to do what? If he's the man to fix things, why don't we really know how he would fix them? Two possibilities come to mind: One, he can't be very specific, because he doesn't know the answers himself. Two, he actually does know, but it is a "secret plan" that is so "radical" (like maybe coming out in favor of the Bowles-Simpson plan) that he is afraid to say it before the election. I tend to go with option one -- leaving his main argument, just "give me a chance" without any real reason to believe he would do any better. That kind of argument usually sounds better coming from a 7-year-old who wants more at-bats in his t-ball league. It doesn't sound so good in the Big Leagues. I do like your idea of you voting for Gary Johnson, however. Not that it probably matters in your state, which I assume is solid red regardless of how you vote.

Scoutingagain, I am convinced that the Romney who would show up in the White House if elected is really not the person who was your governor in Massachusetts. (Speaking figuratively here, not a switched-body conspiracy theory.) It is similar to the way that the John McCain who ran in the 2008 general election was not the same John McCain who ran for the Republican nomination in 2000 and who has done a lot of good bipartisan work in the Senate. I think the Republican presidential primary process has become a "transformative" process, and not in a good way. It forces an electable candidate who is already a conservative to go much further to the "right", and it's difficult to then get back toward the "center", which is where I think a majority of the general election voters want to be. One could argue that something similar goes on in the Democratic Party, but in my opinion, not nearly as much.

Eagledad, could you please do your fellow forum members a favor, and if your initial post in a thread has nothing at all to do with Scouting, not give the thread a title that implies that it is about Scouting? Half the time I skip threads that do not seem to have anything to do with Scouting, and this probably would have been one of them. Just a friendly request.

Eagle732 says: They would be the same societies that believe in chopping off the hands of thieves, that unmarried couples having sex be stoned to death, and that homosexuals be executed. I guess they don't believe in the "local option". Nor do you, I believe.

Well Sentinel, here's your answer, I think: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-un-assembly-ahmadinejadbre88n0hf-20120924,0,2782398,full.story But that link isn't going to work, so: http://tinyurl.com/8byzywu Here are the first three paragraphs: NEW YORK (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday disregarded a U.N. warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric and declared ahead of the annual General Assembly session that Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be "eliminated." Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel could launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, denied sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran's threats to the life of British author Salman Rushdie. The United States quickly dismissed the Iranian president's comments as "disgusting, offensive and outrageous." It appears that this speech was given after the taping of the CNN interview. So he was just saving the "good stuff" for the U.N. General Assembly. I think "eliminated" and "wiped off the map" amount to pretty much the same thing, especially if you are the one being "eliminated."

I don't think Ahmadinejad has changed his opinions, but I do think that the people who tell him what to do and what to say (the religious leader(s)) have decided that now is not the time for them to make the rest of the world more scared of Iran than it already is. I think Iran's leaders are genuinely concerned about an attack by Israel on their nuclear facilities -- as well they should be, because if it were not for the U.S. holding Israel back (as presidents of both parties have done), I think Israel would have sent the fighter/bombers in already. So maybe they have decided that it is not an opportune moment to talk about wiping anybody else off the map. I do notice that Ahmadinejad said of the "Zionists", "I think they see themselves at the end of the line..." (That line is in article below the clip, so it will be in the full interview tonight but I don't recall whether it was in that short clip.) So what does THAT mean? He's not saying HE will wipe Israel off the map, but is implying that Israel thinks it will be wiped off the map by somebody? That confirms to me that his viewpoint probably has not changed, he is just toning down the rhetoric at the moment.

That's great, congratulations!

It would have been nice if the title of this thread indicated somewhere that it was about an opinion column. When I first read it I almost fell off my chair. I must have missed the comma, which changes the meaning. I think it was probably poor judgment for "CNN Opinion" (I didn't even know that existed) to put a photo of Scouts on the top of this column.