NJCubScouter

emb, the funny thing I've found about quotes from the Founding Fathers is that for every quote someone digs up to make a point, there is likely to be an equal and opposite quote from the same Founder that could be used to support an opposing point. I suspect there are quotes from both Adams and Jefferson that are more favorable to the idea of government by elected representatives, though probably not using the word "democracy", which was not in vogue at the time. Also, the quote attributed to Ben Franklin seemed a little fishy to me so I looked it up and at least at one site, it is listed as being "misattributed" to Franklin. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin Note that the word "lunch" was not even in use when Franklin was alive and being quotable. The quote actually is of much more recent origin. And then there is Winston Churchill, who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." (Well, I thought he said that, it's actually a paraphrase of: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill But close enough.) Of course, this assumes that I can believe what I read on the Internet! But when a statement on the web comes along with some research, as these do, I find it much easier to believe than a "loose quote" that is thrown around. Ben Franklin, in particular, is often quoted as saying all kinds of things that he never said. I guess he said so much that people over the years figured nobody would notice if they threw in a few more quotes.

From what I see at the link Le Voyageur posted, the only change for Star is the addition of several POR's to the list. That is what the information packet from my council says as well. They have not added any new requirements for that rank, only provided additional options for passing the existing POR requirement.

Is this a certificate that automatically gets sent by national to council after the application is approved, or something you have to order separately? (I ask for personal reasons, as my son's "Eagle packet" is supposed to be arriving from national "any day now", I'm just not sure what's in the packet.) Either way, it's a shame. I would have liked my son to have had a certificate with the President (of the U.S.'s) "signature" on it. I would hope everyone would feel that way, regardless of who the president happens to be at the time, and how one feels about that particular president. This is a ceremonial, not a political document, and the signature of the president as Honorary President of the B.S.A. is really a symbol of the country that adds something to the occasion. On a somewhat related note, I know that letters come from the "President" if you send a request, but I have observed that different administrations handle this differently, and the letters aren't always actually in the name of the President. My brother thought he was getting a letter from President Reagan, but instead he got one from Vice President Bush. (Actually my brother didn't care, but my father was annoyed about it, and he was not a fan of the President in question.) And I noticed that the Scouts who made Eagle in the G.W. Bush administration received letters not from "President George W. Bush", but from "George and Laura Bush." A separate letter from Michele Obama would be fine, but I'd like to see my son get one from her husband as well.

I have no statistics about those three merit badges, it just seems like when I am speaking with a 17-year-old Life Scout or his parents and ask which merit badges he has left, at least two of those three are usually on the list. I have spoken with Scouters from other troops and they have the same experience. Presumably it is the 90-day and 12-week requirements in those three badges that invites procrastination. I had a bit of recent personal experience with this, as a certain now-18-year-old who happens to live in my house completed two of these badges less than a week before his birthday. (He actually had the "time" requirements done with a whole two or three weeks to spare, he just needed to clean up the last few "discuss with your counselor"-type requirements.) Fortunately he had earned the other one of the trio about two years ago, which explains why my hair is only partly gray. Of course there are exceptions. I recently sat in on a Scoutmaster conference for a Star scout (going for his Life BOR) who has actually completed all three of the MB's in question, and is 15 years old. (He still needs three other required MB's, but at least he broke the usual pattern.)

Eagle732, I'm getting the feeling this is not purely hypothetical. Was the point of your original question that although this particular Scout was passed on Scout spirit from Tenderfoot through Life (maybe by you, maybe by your predecessors, assuming you are the SM), there might be a different standard for Eagle that would make it possible to justify not passing him on this final rank? If so, I think that unless this Scout's behavior has suddenly and seriously gotten worse, it's going to be difficult to justify not passing him at this point. (Assuming that there is an appeal and you are asked about it.) As several people including me have said, the standard isn't really different for Eagle, just the procedure. However, the Scoutmaster has to decide whether in good conscience he can sign off that the Scout has shown Scout spirit. If not, as others have said, there is a right of appeal.

I think Shortridge's suggestion of not trying to outfit the entire troop in an old uniform is a good one, but instead of a mannequin, how about one complete uniform of whatever decade you choose, being worn by an actual Scout? It's probably more interesting that way. Or maybe three different decades, by three different Scouts? -- one with a campaign hat, one with an overseas cap and the third with a red beret, with as close to the matching shirt, pants and neckerchief for the period as you can get. Like "Scouting through the ages."

Well, I think there is a difference, but the difference is in how the Scout passes the requirement, not in what he actually does in his everyday life to pass it. The lower-rank version really just says to live the Scout Oath and Law in your everyday life, and implies that by doing so, you have "demonstrated" Scout spirit. The Eagle requirement doesn't actually mention the words "Scout spirit," but seems to have an additional requirement that you "demonstrate" that you have lived the Scout Oath and Law in your everyday life. If that was the only difference, I would say the meaning was really the same. But there is another sentence in the Eagle requirement, the oft-discussed requirement to "List the names of individuals who know you personally and would be willing to provide a recommendation on your behalf, including parents/guardians, religious, educational and employer references." I take that to mean that one of the ways you demonstrate that you have lived the Scout Oath and Law in your everyday life, when going for Eagle, is to provide the names of people who can attest that you have done so. When we talk about the recommendation requirement in this forum (as we often do), it is easy to forget that it is not just an isolated requirement that appears on the application, but it is actually part of the Eagle "Scout spirit" requirement. (The one that doesn't actually say "Scout spirit.") I guess that for the lower ranks, the Scout's conduct is just observed generally by the Scoutmaster, and that's usually it. (Well, that assumes that the SM has to sign off that requirement, which is true in our troop, but maybe not in others.) So as I said, I don't think the "living the Scout Oath and Law" part is different, but how you show you did it is somewhat different. To make matters more confusing, this requirement is being changed for T, 2C and 1C starting Jan. 1. For those ranks, the Scout will have to "Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life." (That's from the Tenderfoot requirement; for 2C the Scout must discuss a different four examples, and for 1C a different four examples. Now, what it doesn't say, but I think they MIGHT have meant, is that each example must be from a different point of the Law, so that by 1C, the Scout will have covered all 12 points. Any thoughts on that?)

I was looking at emb's web site, www.seniorscoutinghistory.org, which first I have to say is a great site and brought back a lot of memories and told me a lot that I didn't know. So thank you for the site. But the reason I started this thread is the page on Norman Rockwell's depiction of "Senior Scouts" in his art, which is great as a whole, but contains one painting that made me say: Where have I seen that picture? It is this one: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Escouters2/images/r1939.jpg I quickly came up with the answer, which I thought was a good fit for the Scouting History forum. I had recently been looking at my father's Scouting memorabilia, with the idea of having some of it on display at my son's Eagle COH which will take place during the BSA centennial year (and perhaps the centennial month, that's still being worked out.) One of the items is a binder containing all of his registration cards, from the year-ending 1939 to the year he passed away (several years ago.) As some here may (or may not) know, the registration cards for Scouts in the 30's and 40's were fancy deals, tri-folded cards, not the computerized slips of today. Each one has a Scouting-oriented painting. The ones for y/e 1939 and 40 are a generic picture, unsigned, but the ones for 1941 through 1944 are this same painting by Norman Rockwell that I linked to -- just the Scouts, on a white background, without all the historical figures above that appear in the original painting. How far beyond 1944 that painting was on the youth registration card I don't know, because at that point my father's cards switch to the adult leader variety, which was a much simpler one-part card -- though still much more ornate than the cards of today! I thought it was interesting, anyway.

Should I be the one to point out that the BSA is not the military, so it's ok for the terminology to be different, and kind of confusing to try to equate the two? Nah, I'll let someone else do that. In our troop (notice how cleverly I avoid the "my troop"/"troop I serve" argument), "Class A" is just a synonym for "the uniform." What the SM is really doing when he says "Class A" to the Scouts is reminding them that their hat, neckerchief and Scout belt are part of the uniform -- and Scout socks if you've got 'em.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Kevin has until his 18th birthday, 11 months away, to wrap up the requirements for the Eagle Scout rank. After he finishes the service project, he still needs to earn two more merit badges. Wait, don't tell me, let me guess: Personal Fitness and Personal Management. Or Family Life. Seriously though, congrats and good luck to this Scout and, indeed, all's well that end's well. But let's not make too much of a habit of all this peace, love and happiness on the Issues and Politics Forum, it just doesn't seem right.

Unless I am missing something here, this new Bronze award sounds like an additional opportunity for Venturers to pursue. It's not a requirement. It doesn't sound like a "program focus." It certainly doesn't limit crew members from doing other activities. And by the way, if anyone thinks there aren't already "computer nerds", "math and science geeks" and prospective engineers in Venturing, or in high-adventure Scouting activities, I can think of a number of young men I could introduce you to, to set you straight. My son is involved in a FIRST (robotics, computers, engineering etc.) team at high school and the proportion of kids in that group who are also Scouts is huge -- and this includes Venturers and kids who have been to Philmont.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Whether half full or half empty, it would have to be a pretty LARGE glass, or it isn't getting approved, at least not in my council.

You may have to look at BSA precedent on this matter, i.e. 1972/73, 1979/80, 1992/93 (the addition of Family ALMOST got me) etc. One problem with that is that they seem to do it slightly differently every time, which actually makes some sense when you look at the nature of the changes. In the first two changes you mention, it wasn't just a matter of adding or subtracting or re-wording requirements, but really changing to a completely different advancement system. (From a "list-based" system to a skill awards and merit badge based system for the lower ranks, and back again, plus major changes in the required list in 72-73.) I remember that in what must have been 1972, while the younger kids in the troop were working on Skill Awards, I was still learning semaphore (one of the phased-out requirements) for First Class, so it really made a difference. This time they are just adding a few requirements here and there. Another factor is TroopMaster. I have never used it myself, but I have a feeling that it may look at the dates-of-rank and determine whether a Scout needed to fulfill a particular requirement. When my son's advancement reports were printed out before his Eagle BOR, I noticed that the requirements that were adopted for certain ranks after he made that rank (such as "invite a friend to a meeting" and "explain the 3 R's") had "N/A" next to them, rather than a blank or a date. So it may be that TroopMaster (once it is updated for the new requirements) will be programmed to send up a red flag if it thinks a Scout should have fulfilled a requirement and he hasn't. Maybe someone who knows how the program actually works can answer that question.

This seems very unlikely for the reasons already stated, but the idea that a new requirement like this is planned to take effect in 2014 (see artjrk's post) seems at least plausible. But only if First Aid MB is also made a requirement for Star. (Which isn't entirely out of the question; for most of the 70's First Aid MB was required for one of the lower ranks, I believe First Class.) On the other hand, I'm not sure that they plan that far ahead. But I guess we'll see.

Interesting. What does it mean to have "started work toward a rank"? Does it mean having done ANY of the requirements toward that rank? So, a Tenderfoot who has earned one merit badge would have "started" working on Star and therefore does not need to do the new requirements for Star, even if he makes Second Class after 1/1/2010? I don't think so. (And actually this is only a theoretical question since there actually are no new requirements for Star.) To make it even more ridiculous, it would mean that a Tenderfoot who has earned at least three non-required MB's has "started" working on Life, because the third non-required MB won't "count" toward a rank until Life. But I don't think that is what they meant. They probably mean, if you have a BOR before 1/1/2010, your NEXT rank can still be done under the old requirements, but not the one after that. This could be a little unfair in some cases. We have a lot of boys who, when they pass their Second Class BOR, have a majority, or almost all, of their First Class requirements completed. But it's really not a huge deal since there are only two new requirements for First Class, and they don't look that onerous. And no requirements have been deleted, for any rank. It is not like when I was in the Boy Scouts and they completely changed all the rank requirements, going from a system very similar to what exists now (specific requirements for each rank, from many different subjects) to one where you had to earn Skill Awards and even Merit Badges for the lower ranks. In that case it was much more important to have a clear transition. To make things even more complicated, on my last visit to council, I got a packet about the new rank requirements and it says "The (name of council) Advancement Committee has passed the following policy "A boy who has not completed a Scoutmaster Conference under the old requirements by 4/1/2010 must use the 2010 requirements for all ranks"". If I read this correctly, together with what the new handbook says, it means that a Scout who has a BOR before 1/1/2010 uses the old requirements for the next rank, BUT only if he has his SM conference before April 1. Now, this is interesting because some people in this forum think you can have an SM conference for a rank before completing all the other requirements for that rank, so it would be easy to "game" this requirement. However, the assumption in my council seems to be that the SM conference is the last requirement that is passed. Otherwise, making the SM conference the cutoff wouldn't make any sense. It may not make sense as it is, since the BOR date is the "date of rank" for every other purpose. But they probably just want to give a break to kids in troops that may have BOR's on some periodic basis such as monthly or even less often, rather than on an as-needed basis.

TwoCub, You ask a lawyer question, here's a lawyer answer: It depends. No, but really, it depends on what the specific lease actually says. Or to put it another way, the key word is the word "early." What's "early" in this case? If I recall correctly, there is a lease that permitted the Scouts to build a building on the property (which as Calico correctly says above, became part of the leased land), but it also permits the Scouts to occupy the leased building (and the land on which it sits) for $1 per year, and what I am a little hazy on is that I think there was a termination clause. Based on my vague recollection of past discussions, I believe the lease actually says either party has the right to terminate the lease on one year's notice. Maybe someone else has a clearer recollection or is willing to dig through years worth of old threads to find the answer. But if that's what it says, and the city gave the BSA the year's notice (which I believe they did), then the city did not end the lease "early."

Yes OGE, I think Frank17 got Juliette Gordon Low mixed up with Ernest Thompson Seton and ended up with Elizabeth Ann Seton as the founder of GSUSA. While Elizabeth Ann Seton did many good works during her lifetime (resulting in her becoming the first American-born saint of the Roman Catholic Church, being canonized in the 1970's), that lifetime ended in 1821, so it would appear that Scouting was not among her projects. Of all the comments above, the one I really have to shake my head at is the idea that the "improved Scouting program" of the 70's is somehow responsible for declining membership numbers today. Boy oh boy. As someone who was a Scout both before and after that change in the program, I can tell you that while it was a mistake in some ways, it was nowhere near the disaster that I often see portrayed in this forum, and it is not responsible for anywhere near the ill-effects for which it is blamed. If you want to know the main reason Scouting's numbers declined in the 70's, take a look at the birth statistics for the relevant time period. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html Take, for example, the numbers for 1959 vs. 1969 (when 11-year-olds in 1970 vs. 1980 were born.) And while the birth rate dropped, to me the really amazing statistic is the number of births: Almost 4.3 million in 1959, dropping to 3.6 million in 1969 and finally bottoming-out around 3.1 million in the mid-70's. Quite a drop in a population that was moving steadily upwards. That's where you'll find the reason for most of the ups and downs in Scouting membership -- not because Camping MB was taken off the required list, or the Scout Handbook taught how to treat a rat bite, or because of red berets, or even because some councils fudged their numbers and then stopped after they got caught.

Mr Boyce, I have seen some "tepid and timid" male Assistant Scoutmasters, and I have seen all-male troop leadership drive their troops into the ground. I don't think either gender has a monopoly on success or failure in this business.

The patch over the right pocket on my early-70's uniform says "SCOUT B.S.A." The rumor at the time was that this was the signal that the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts would become one organization in the near future. I was a teenager at the time so I was not in a position to confirm or deny the rumor. I don't know if anyone in this forum has first-hand information about what happened. What I heard later is that the two organizations discussed merger but decided against it and that the BSA did not wish to encroach on the Girl Scouts' core program by admitting girls to "Boy" Scout troops. What I know for sure is that about 35 years later, the BSA and GSUSA are still two different organizations, and Boy Scout troops are still boys-only.

Take 'em one at a time is right, Oak Tree. Actually, what I do is not believe anything -- or disbelieve it, unless it is ridiculous -- until I see it in a BSA publication. It saves time worrying. I would guess that in my 7 years reading this forum, I have probably seen about 30 messages that include, I (or my friend, or my spouse, or whoever) talked to someone from National at Philmont, and they said... I don't have any statistics, but the report probably comes true about half the time. And I'd guess that about one-fourth of the reports, going back years, concern the Cooking Merit Badge. (Edit: Fix grammar)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I was wondering about that Ed, because the original news story in this thread said he was the local president, and the latest announcement of the national union said he is not. I was wondering which one was wrong, but it turns out both were correct when they were written. If that's the case, I don't see why the national union didn't just say the guy resigned, rather than say he "is" not the local president, which is slightly misleading. (Seems to me someone else got in trouble with the meaning of the word "is", I can't remember who... just kidding, I remember, I remember, don't say it!) All's well that ends well though, right? Maybe this guy will be a little more careful before he makes a speech the next time.

Neither the Establishment Clause nor the Religious Test Clause restrict the conduct of religious organizations. They restrict the conduct of the government. (Of course, if a particular religion was ever to attain a dominant role over the government, it might be difficult to tell the difference; that is one of the very things these clauses are designed to protect against.) So, while it would be a problem for the government to fly a religious flag in its buildings, it is no problem for a church, synagogue etc. to fly the American flag. No constitutional problem, anyway -- it is up to whoever governs that religious organization. In my own religion (Judaism) it is common (at least in Reform congregations) to fly the American flag in the sanctuary. (In the U.S., of course.) A somewhat more contentious issue has been the flying of the flag that is used as the national flag of Israel, but is also considered the flag of the movement for the return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land. The prevailing opinion is that because the return to the Holy Land is part of Jewish doctrine, the flag has a place in the synagogue as the symbol of that belief. It isn't merely the flag of a foreign country. (Of course, if I were to go into a "national church" in the United States, for example a Ukrainian Orthodox Church, I would not be surprised to see the national flag of the Ukraine, but the analogy is not a perfect one.) (Edit: Typo)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

However, I have heard rumblings about having BSA sponsor some all-girl units. Really. Did this rumor come along with any details like what age group and what the units would be called. (Of course, I know better than to really put too much stock in rumors reported in this forum. I still remember the highly-placed and absolutely-confirmed report on this site that Cooking Merit Badge would be back on the required list, possibly by the end of 2008, definitely by the end of 2009, and there would be other changes to the required list at the same time. Well, the new handbook is here with rank requirement changes as of Jan. 1, 2010, and the required list appears to be unchanged.)

SMT, so you are saying the boys were showing off and acting like idiots around the girls? Say it ain't so! On the larger issue here, is there really a serious move afoot to include girls at all levels of Scouting? My understanding from long ago was that the BSA and the GSUSA had at least a tacit agreement that the BSA was not going to do that. As for Jsummerlin, I don't see any inconsistency in a program for youth of one gender being led and supported by adults of both genders.

Beavah, I didn't say anything about graduations or weddings. That's your characterization, not mine. I also don't see where scoutmom2 said anything about an "outdoor" ceremony. (Not that having a ceremony outdoors (meaning, outside, but people still sitting in chairs) is a bad idea, but I think by "outdoors" you are talking about a camping trip, which I think excludes a portion of the people who would want to attend.) You also seem be saying that you have to make a choice between focusing on what is "most meaningful for the Eagle Scout" and focusing on the family and guests. I disagree. You can balance both. And, hopefully, a young adult will also derive some meaning and happiness from the happiness and pride of his family. If he wants to have a camping trip with his friends the following weekend and wear his Eagle badge, that's fine too. And, call me crazy, when my son is presented with his Eagle sometime in the next few months, if there is a letter from the president and the governor and maybe an astronaut or two, I think it would kind of nice to have them read at the ceremony. If my son objects to that, we won't do it, but I don't think he'll object.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)