Rick_in_CA

Actually, for a big chunk of our nation's history, the legal "Age of Majority" was 21, not 18. In the 20th century, our society began to push elements of adult hood (such as the draft age in WW2) down in age for various reasons. That is how now we have the case where you are legally an adult at 18, but don't have full access to all the adult privileges (such as buying beer) until you are 21. I agree it's a bit a joke now days. It produces the absurd situation where you can have a 20 year old platoon leader in the US Army that is expected to lead some 40 soldiers in combat, but isn't considered responsible enough to buy a beer for himself. When the BSA's Senior Scout program got started in the 1930s, for most of the country, you weren't an adult until 21 (the Age of Majority was set by the states). So the ages for the program were set at 15 to 21.

So Darwin "had absolutely no training whatsoever as a naturalist"? Really? So those years at the University of Edinburgh studying with the marine biologist Robert Edmond Grant don't count? Or his membership in the Plinian Society (a society for students of natural history)? Or when at Cambridge his botany studies with John Stevens Henslow don't count either? Yes, Darwin's father sent him to Edinburgh to study medicine, and to Cambridge to study theology, but Darwin studied to become a naturalist instead. And yes, he wasn't the official naturalist on the Beagle, that was the ship's surgeon Robert McCormick, but McCormick left the five year voyage after only a year (McCormick felt that Darwin had supplanted him as the official naturalist). And yes, Darwin was young and inexperienced when he joined the Beagle, but that doesn't mean that his research was all cribbed from others. And yes, Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution out of whole cloth, but built on earlier ideas (just as Albert Einstein built his work on the work Maxwell, Lorentz and others, and Max Planck and others went on to build on the work of Einstein), but that is the scientific process. So sorry to burst your fact free bubble, but to say that Charles Darwin wasn't a naturalist is silly.

I have heard of some local cub packs inviting girl scout units to join them for the pinewood derby (the girls built cars and raced as their own division). Our pack considered doing that one year, but the girl scouts weren't interested (those girls that were, raced in the siblings division).

Looks like lots of fun!

I'm very sorry for your loss.

Yeah, the Boy Scout Memorial in Washington DC. I get beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but to me, that's one ugly statue (especially the male figure on the left - it just looks wrong!). I always thought it had more to do with fear of child sexual abuse and gays than the free love of the 60s. But maybe it's all related.

A good article, you should also read the Jonathan Chait article the LA Times article references. I especially agree with the paragraph:

As for service clubs, one of the things that the article doesn't mention much is that historically they are not friendly to women. Rotary, Kiwanis and Lions didn't allow women until the 1980s (and did that kicking and screaming), and even though women are allowed in these clubs, they don't always receive a nice welcome. The Shriners still don't allow women I believe. And this perceived unfriendliness towards women (which by now might be mostly unfounded) hurts recruiting.

I don't think it's because they are lazy, I think it's because they are overwhelmed. The kids are overscheduled, their parents have to chauffeur them around everywhere, and they have to work over 40 hours a week to stay ahead. Plus the middle class is getting hammered, and everyone is stressed out about getting their kids into a good college and somehow paying for it. So every activity is put through the "how will this look on a college application?" filter. Everyone is working harder for less (unless you are a hedge fund manager). People that do have jobs feel much less secure in them, and are working longer hours so they don't get picked in the next layoff; which leads to more stress. Want your kid to play a sport in high school? Better get them in a competitive peewee league early. Want them to play more than one sport in high school? Unacceptable! Everything requires a 100% commitment. Everyone thinks they are fighting over an every shrinking pie. So everything is more competitive. More stress. When I was a kid, my parents were involved in my activities. My mom was a den mother, my dad was a ASM and CM of my boy scout troop. Plus my dad was a leader in with Indian Guides when I and my brother were active. My dad worked as a civil engineer for Caltrans. So we didn't have a lot of money (it's why the family started camping for our vacations, because it was cheep), but we got by. But my dad got four weeks vacation a year (he was senior enough) an my mom didn't have to work (she returned to part time work when we were older). I got myself too many of the scout meetings, little league etc. on my own by walking or riding my bike. Yes we had multiple activities, but it wasn't hard to juggle. Things are much harder and more stressful now. So instead of yelling LAZY LAZY LAZY, try to understand it's more complex than that.

No. When I was a kid we had group showers at camp (scout camp or non-scout camp - and young children of either gender took showers with Mommy or Daddy), group showers in the school locker room and some troops still went skinny dipping (I don't remember mine doing it - though we did do group bathing on long backpacking trips). It was all no big deal. As another thread pointed out, it wasn't that many decades ago that most high schools mandated nude swimming for males. Most of Europe is much less uptight about things then we are. Go look at the various international scout camps in Europe, you will see that single gender sleeping arrangements are by "special request".* Note: These coed sleeping arrangements are with larger groups (an entire patrol in one tent). My guess is that European units when using two-person tents like us, go with single gender tenting.

Glad to hear that. It does look like you ended up with a good solution.

Showing a pirated copy of a movie in current release is clearly wrong in my opinion (it is clearly theft); and presents a poor example to the scouts. Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. However some on this forum are taking a rather black and white view of legality. Not all things that are legal are moral, and not all things that are illegal are immoral. In general following the law is the moral thing to do (A Scout is Obedient), but not always. Many of the civil rights marches in the 60s were illegal, but were they immoral? The underground railroad smuggling slaves to freedom was illegal (was a serious crime in fact), but was clearly moral. Reporting an escaped slave was following the law, but was it the moral thing to do? As it has been pointed out, copyright law in this country is a bit of a mess, and violating it is surprisingly easy. For example, inviting some friends over to watch a DVD with me is a violation of the law. But lending them the DVD to watch in their home is not. So if the second case isn't immoral, why should the first be? If I purchase a DVD and watch it on my laptop on an airplane, I understand that is illegal (it is licensed for home use and I am watching it outside of my home), but is it immoral? Take jaywalking. There is a street near my home that I (and many people) often cross on foot. It is a street that has an odd curve in this location. The unmarked crosswalk is in a bad location as because of the curve, your sight lines (and those of the cars) are shortened. It is much safer to cross about 100 feet north as the site lines are better. However, crossing there is technically jaywalking, but is it immoral? Even the cop that lives in the neighborhood jaywalks on this street because it's safer. So what is the right thing to do?

Actually Wikipedia is in fact as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica on most things. You do have to be careful however on "hot" topics and pop culture stuff. As for you problem, Wikipedia has a process where articles can be protected from vandalism, but you have to get involved with the editing process. Each article has a talk page, which is where you should start.

How very sad. I feel sorry for everyone involved.

I have no personal knowledge either. So the two of us need to go on what we can read and try to judge. This I don't understand. How is the hate group nonsense a strawman? That nonsense is the whole point! I have been talking about how some people on the right are making claims that Muslim groups are deliberately creating Sharia law zones in Europe and here in America (Dearborn Michigan?), and that those claims are not true. And even though those claims have been debunked, they are still talking about them. Yes there are places where "practical problems" make policing difficult. But that isn't the same as saying the Muslims are deliberately creating Sharia law zones. The "be afraid of Muslims" part is the only reason people like Tony Perkins, Jerry Boykin, and Bobby Jindal are talking about it at all. If you take away the Muslim and Sharia law parts of the story, then no one would be talking about it.

The sad part is you seem incapable of understanding my point (perhaps because I am expressing it badly). You guys are talking about the wrong kind of "no-go zones". What the wingnuts are talking about, and what I am referring too, are Muslim Sharia law no-go zones. These are zones that are deliberately created as part of a large movement among Muslims to establish such zones where Sharia law is enforced instead of national laws. That the European governments are giving into these Muslim demands for local autonomy and allowing (officially or not) the establishment of such zones. That these zones are organized, created by design, and for religious reasons. That you can find hundreds of these zones all over Europe. And that Muslims want to do the same thing here. This is the "fact" that has been thoroughly debunked, yet many on the right still believe. That is what Jindal is pandering too. That is the point I have been trying to make. This made up "fact" is intended to provide support for the right's "we must be afraid of Muslims" meme. That was the bet. That I would talk about Muslim Sharia law zones, and you guys would ignore the whole Muslim and Sharia law part and talk about the equivalent of housing projects.

So standing up for religious freedom, the rights of citizens and the US Constitution is sad and sick?

Thank you all, you just won me a nice bet. So, the statement was that there were Muslim no-go zones where non-Muslims cannot go, and where Sharia law applies. That has been debunked. Are there high crime areas where police go carefully? Sure, we have them here. Do some of those areas in France have a lot of Muslim immigrants? Yes. But that is not the same as France having "officially designated" zones where "non-Muslim French citizens are forbidden from entering", where "Sharia law rules." Nor are these areas of London where "there are actual religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn’t dress according to religious Muslim attire". So TAHAWK, are you saying that these zones do exist? That there are officially designated Muslim only areas where non Muslims are forbidden to enter, and Sharia law applies? Because that is the "fact" I am talking about, and it has been debunked. Not that France and the UK have the equivalent of our housing projects (with many of the same associated problems). It's part of the "be afraid of Muslims" narrative that many (not all) on the right are now pushing, and that Bobby Jindal is pandering too. Is that what you are defending? By the way, I'm enjoying this discussion! I hope you guys are enjoying it too.

To return to the "right wing doesn't like facts" idea, lets look at one of those "facts". "Many cities in Europe, including Birmingham England, have become Muslim no-go zones where non-Muslims cannot go and Sharia law is enforced." So versions of this "fact" have been bouncing around the right-wing paranoia sphere ever since 9/11. However, it got a big move into the main-stream when FOX News hosted Steve Emerson recently. Since then several other pundits commentators (such as FOX News' Noland Peterson) added to the story. Of course, it turns out all to be false. There was no evidence to begin with, Birmingham is not "all Muslim", France has not designated no-go zones where sovereignty has been suspended. FOX News had to issue an apology. Even Emerson retracted his statements about Birmingham. So it's debunked, and the "fact" can die a quite death? Of course not. It looks like Boby Jindal wants to be President and has to appeal to the Republican base, so no-go zones have to be real for him. To bad about that reality thing. Things were getting quiet around here.

They stopped a 16 year old??? He can drive himself, but not walk somewhere? This is really messed up.

Wow! I just don't understand people like this. You are definitely better off without that kind of bigotry in your unit.

Sounds interesting. So what was the project?

So what does happen if something is flagged on the background check? Does the unit get told what the issue is and allowed to make a decision, or are they just told "no" by the council? Does the person applying for membership get informed and offered a chance to challenge the background check (the background check companies often do quick and dirty checks and make mistakes - you get what you pay for)? Has anyone here ever seen an application rejected due to a background check and knows how it's supposed to work? I know when a potential employer runs a background check on an applicant (at least here in California), if the check returns something negative, the applicant must be told and given a chance to correct or explain anything it turns up. That happened to an old coworker of mine, his background check turned up a serious criminal conviction that wasn't his (from a state he never lived in). He was able to show it was an error, and got the job. The legal protections for volunteers are probably very different then for employees.