NJCubScouter

At least this time he didn't call any women nasty names or talk about grabbing their body parts.

And perhaps more importantly, if your 18th birthday was last week, or last month, and your EBOR is tonight, you will never get those palms at all, because you cannot serve three more months after your EBOR. I think that at least 40% of the EBOR's in my troop have been held after the Scout's 18th birthday.

Let me see if I understand you. Do you think that my son, who made Eagle in 2009, almost at the last possible minute (so no palms), and earned 29 merit badges (3 more than required for one Bronze palm), should now be awarded a Bronze Palm, at the age of 25? And do you think that my younger brother, who made Eagle in 1981, almost at the last possible minute, and assuming he earned at least 26 merit badges (which I strongly suspect he did), should be awarded one or more palms, in his mid-50's?* I also know a guy who made Eagle in 1963, whose father (no longer with us, I believe) also made Eagle, presumably sometime in the 30's or early 40's. I don't know how many MB's either of them earned but I think you get my point. How far back do you go? (*I just realized my brother may have had to earn 24 MB's for Eagle so the numbers are different, but it doesn't change the basic question. I am not sure when that was changed back to 21.)

I think many troops are going to have Scouts who fall on one side of this line or another, by a few weeks or months. Our troop does. It's going to seem "unfair" to the boys who fall just on the wrong side of line. Either of your two solutions sound reasonable to me.

That's true, but in this case it's always "the middle of the game." The only other choice is to keep every rule and requirement exactly the same forever, and the BSA isn't going to do that, and shouldn't do that. (Although, as I have said many times, I wish they would change the advancement requirements less often, and I have very mixed feelings (leaning toward "thumbs down") on this particular change.)

I'm a little curious about "Lock Picker." "Gentleman Scholar" sounds good - but again, mainly for the boys in the troop, not me. Some of our boys are scholars, although you wouldn't know it from the complete lack of any of them ever earning Scholarship MB even though it would be a snap. The "gentleman" part could use some work sometimes.

Am I the only one who starts singing "Bohemian Rhapsody" when I hear this guy's name? (Apologies to anyone under the age of about 35 who may not know what I am talking about.)

I don't know any adults who would be attracted to this by the "merit badges".

Neither will I, but let's just say that it is not unheard of for lawyers to use "colorful language" when speaking with each other, but not when appearing before a judge in a courtroom, or in any other formal setting, or in front of a client (usually) - or when talking to a newspaper reporter. You mention LBJ, he sometimes DID let some expletives fly in front of reporters (as some of them wrote in their books years later), but those expletives did not find their way into the next day's newspapers, because there was an understanding among the "guys" (and they were almost all guys) that that sort of thing was automatically not for publication. Just like when reporters in say the 50's/60's (or earlier) would learn of certain infidelities by the politician they were traveling with, this was not reported (at the time) by the "guys" either. Obviously those days are long over, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Scaramucci understood that when he unleashed his "colorful metaphors".

Nobody's free speech rights are being violated here. As Ducttape says, the right to free speech is a right against government interference with (or punishment of) speech. Criticizing what someone has said, or criticizing the person for saying it, does not affect his right to free speech, in fact the criticism is equally protected as "free speech." However, an organization such as the BSA has no obligation to allow anyone to use its events as a "platform" to make statements that are contrary to the values of the organization. The BSA does not allow its programs to become a political platform. I agree with part of Col. Flagg says: The BSA, having made its very appropriate public statement, SHOULD meet with the president to make sure he understands what is and is not appropriate when speaking to a group of Boy Scouts, and if he cannot commit to respecting those limitations, he should not be invited to speak at any other Scouting events.

The thing he said about Steve Bannon... wow... I think I have heard that expression once before in my life but the person was not speaking to a news reporter.

I was referring to the next election, if he makes it that far. We ARE going to have another one, right? I mean, these days one never knows what's going to change suddenly.

It appears they think it's about the same thing that I think it's about. Stosh, do you REALLY think it's appropriate for a president to make a divisive political speech, and to demean and insult people, at a Jamboree? Can you really think that?

I guess we'll all find out at the Constitutionally appropriate time.

You can assure your Scouts that teenagers are not the only ones at a loss about what to make of a lot of the things this president says, and how to react. Most adults are in the same boat. A lot of things he says and does have never been said or done by a president before. Some people see that as a good thing, some don't. (I think people can figure out which category I am in.)

I think the CSE went as far as he could be reasonably expected to go. Far enough but not too far. Balance in all things, that's my philosophy.

I like it. It's as direct a statement as one could make without naming the person, but it's obvious who he is talking about. It's not one of these non-apology apologies, and it makes clear what he is apologizing for, which is kind of a rarity these days. He comes right out and says that political rhetoric was inserted into our Jamboree. Good job Mr. Surbaugh. I also think that this should be the end of the matter as far as BSA National - and all BSA members - are concerned. The word "condemn" is not necessary here, and you're not going to hear that from a CSE anyway. There has been enough other commentary about it so that the public has gotten the message that the president's remarks were inappropriate, and those who are receptive to that message can do what they will with it.

Unfortunately I was unable to go to my council's meeting on "Family Accessibility" last night, so I have nothing to report. However, it is my understanding that the video that was posted much earlier in this thread, introduced by (I believe) the current national commissioner and featuring CSE Michael Surbaugh, is the same video that was going to be shown at these meetings, and then the information in the video would be discussed by the local Scouters and council brass at the meeting. So I feel like I at least know what was presented last night. As for the discussion afterward, given the "demographics" of my council, I suspect that the feedback was "mixed", and somewhat more positive on the Cub Scout part of this than the Boy Scout part - much as it is in this forum. So that's my report on a meeting I didn't attend.

Very sad. My condolences to the family, friends and Scouts and Scouters who knew this young man.

I am not sure what you are asking me, so I will just write some things and see if they answer your question. First I think we have to make sure we are defining our terms the same. To me, "going coed" means that there are going to packs and/or troops that have both boys and girls, whether in different dens/patrols or not. To me, if there are all-boy units and all-girl units but not "mixed" units, that is not "coed." As I have said a number of times before, my preference would be that the BSA not have "coed" packs or troops. I am fine if the BSA creates a "parallel program" for girls of Boy Scouting age, "parallel" including the ability to earn Eagle with all the same requirements as exist for boys. it does NOT mean that there will be all-boy units and all-girl units, but not boys and girls together in the same unit. The CSE's proposal, as indicated in the video linked earlier in this thread, is to have (as a matter of local option) "coed" packs, in which dens would be boy-only or girl-only, AND single-gender packs, but NOT "coed" Boy Scout troops. I think he made that very clear. For girls of the "Boy Scout" age group there would be a different program that would have all-girl units, either an existing non-BSA program that would "partner" with the BSA or a completely new BSA program that would "parallel" Boy Scouts, either partially or entirely. Why am I concerned about coed packs or troops? Part of it is the "boys need a place to be boys" issue. Part of it is the "distraction" that I have seen occur when boys visit our troop. That being the case, it does not really matter to me whether "coed", if it is instituted, "works" or results in an increase in membership and revenues, or not. That is what National cares about, it is not really what I care about. I hope that somewhere in there is an answer to your question.

I think "increasing membership" and "increasing revenues" go hand in hand, not only because of the additional membership fees but because I think large donors are willing to give more when they see that more youth are being served. As for what the BSA may "foresee", I don't know, but I doubt that there are many major donors out there who are holding back their donations until the BSA admits girls at all age levels. I have not heard of any.

I don't think he invented that.

Calico, as true as the information about Ronald Reagan may be, I just think the whole issue of what past presidents did is irrelevant, whether it is Reagan or Obama or whoever else. What matters is that the current president did go to the Jamboree, and acted badly. He made a political/campaign speech at what is supposed to be a non-political event in a non-political organization. Much of it is incoherent or barely coherent. He decided this was an appropriate opportunity to insult and taunt people and joke about firing a member of his cabinet. It just boggles my mind. I do agree with you that there was a mostly-good speech in there, it was the last one-third (or so) of what he said, but it was overshadowed by the rest of it.

I disagree. As I have said before, I think this is entirely about increasing membership. I don't think it is because National has any particular desire to admit girls, other than for the expected impact on membership. And I don't think National believes it "will take decades to yield results." Whether they are correct or not is a different discussion, and we won't know the answer to that until after they do it, if they do it.

No, they are "gathering input" through council-level meetings and online surveys. There is a thread about all this titled "A letter from my SE."