skeptic

For me, the whole intent of this new requirement is to try to help the scout to focus on these things themselves, rather than our impression as to how he lives up to them. We should already be observing these elements regularly anyway if we are doing our job. This requirement seems to aim the scout to reflect a bit more on the actual meaning of the law, and yes the oath. For many, it is so repetitive, that it almost has no meaning. So, knowing that they will be asked this they may actually begin to think a little more about it directly. Keeping track, as noted already, simply requires a minor notation in the book as to what points they discussed already. That is not exactly a hard thing to do I would not think. Rather than bloviate about how terrible and difficult this is, simply mold it to your best approach, and keep it consistent. I personally will try to make sure all the points are covered, as that is how I see the intent, but if your approach is different, it is your approach. It is one more way to help the boy think more about his own character and development as a good citizen and person. This cannot be harmful, and certainly is one of the foundation stones of scouting. JMHO

Yesterday it got to 78, and today is in the low 70's. We are sooooo spoiled.

Philmont is the diamond, but there are a number of others as well, and looks to be another good possibility coming on line. Besides that, there are probably at least a couple of dozen exceptional camps belonging to councils that have extremely good programs, like Emerald Bay on Catalina, a couple in the north Great Basin area and Rockies, and from what I have read some in the Great Lakes and northeast mountains. So we are blessed, even with the sell offs of some camps and council issues. Room for growth, and a new century to work at it. Meanwhile, find ways to keep the "outing" in the program, and focus on the local level.

Whoa here folks. Take a deep breath and quit being so defensive. If you feel that you are being attacked somehow, I apologize; but that was not the intent. But, you very well may be substantiating my question, as being so thin skinned that a simple question upsets you is part of the problem. In most cases, you can do what seems right, and move forward. If your decision is not seen as correct, then you simply weigh the criticism and adjust or decide you are right with your decision. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but many individuals seem to ask the question before even making an attempt to understand or simply make a rational, logical interpretation. Again, I see this is kids in the classroom. They will not even try to do a problem without help, or answer a question without coaching. It appear "almost afraid" to make an attempt, because "someone" will criticize or they will be wrong. That is certainly not the example I want to portray as a leader. And I see this way more often than I would hope.

As I have reviewed the various postings recently, I am struck by how often it appears that we seem to have a lot of people that can not make a decision based on what they reasonable interpretations of what is written. This is similar to the syndrome that youth appear to have regarding attempting something because it seems logical or possible, without looking for direction or approval; what I perceive as a fear of making a mistake or being perceived negatively. My imagination? Or is this something others notice?

Can someone give a clue as to when I might expect to be contacted regarding the assignment they have given me? Need to know such things as uniforming needs, sleeve idents, schedule for reporting, and so on. Have a troop I need to get to camp before the event, but do not know if I will have time to go, though I really should if possible. Thanks.

Still see little recognition of realities in the world. It is one thing to say someone has a right to do something. It is quite another thing to accept that few will "actually" associate when it happens. The so called more open minded youth referred to still do not generally "hang" with Gays; nor do most of the outspoken PC adults. They can allow them to exist, but choose to not include them in their personal spaces in most instances. And, that is what would happen, most likely in a scout unit. Acceptance would be marginal, unless the entire unit was made up of similar individuals. This is seen with African Americans, Latinos, and most other culturally defined groups in large urban areas, and even small towns at times. That is why we have recognized areas within the large cities that reflect these preferences. Thus, the local option would likely simply see few, if any successful units absorb openly Gay individuals. And if forced to accept them, the units would most likely fold, defeating the intent in the first place. These "realities" are ignored. This is clearly apparent if you are looking at what is actually occurring in communities. Acceptance simply allows a group to exist with less, hopefully, animosity. It does not change the fact that they will still pretty much be a group within their own world, and only peripherally involved with the larger populace. Maybe that will change eventually, but right now, it is the way it is. In regard to the atheist, it simply is not part of scouting. And, if that is your belief, then accept that you are not able to be a member. It is a core value dating back to BP himself. Agnostics, on the other hand, could be assimilated without much effort, if they are willing to simply admit that something spiritually greater exists, but they have yet to make a decision as to what works for them. Simply MHO.

Bad news; your "coon skin hat" wasn't real either!

GHB; I certainly would not consistently pass all of your noted tasks, especially the birds. And, fire starting without matches is a hit or miss thing for me at best; though the requirement has never been to do so anyway. If I have to box the compass beyond sixteen, I might misname something; and after 32, I likely would simply botch it up pretty well. Now, if you just want it put back in its container, I can do that well, I think.

Guess it depends on the definition; but most of the ones in my units during the late 50's and early 60's were at least above average students, and interested in science, and seemed to be more than willing to explore outside their known world. But, in reality, camping was more drive in then too, as equipment was still heavy and uncomfortable. Of course, driving in then did not subject you to much but the outdoors, as the idiots who make the more accessible sites such problems today, were pretty much non existent.

"Are there really many people today who actually believe that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time?" Pack, where you been? Just ask Fred and Wilma. Of course, we also have Barney in his regal hue. [:0}

There are lapel pins available for many, if not all, the scouter awards. I have one for Silver Beaver, Eagle, and God and Country; I wear them at Eagle dinners and council annual meetings. As noted, there is no reason the actual Eagle cannot be worn with civilian attire, if it is appropriate for the event.

It seems to me that Eamonn points out once again the reality of how it has been, and likely should be. If it is not made into a public issue, then it never becomes a problem. Once it crosses that line and becomes a problem of some kind, whether hetero or Gay, then it has to be dealt with. This is as it should be. The ban has been so taken out of context by its detractors, that it is hardly really understood. First, it has never included youth, as long as they do not make things public displays. The adult ban is on "avowed Gays", those individuals who feel the need to push their agenda and lifestyle in a manner that makes it a public issue that causes problems and threatens some people. Just like hetero individuals, the issue should simply not be public. Most units quietly push "known" philanderers out if it becomes a problem within the group. They do the same for drug users, public alcoholics, foul mouthed or abusive people, and so on. It would not be nearly the problem politically that it is if it had not become the PC agenda of a few "avowed" individuals, most of whom were never actually involved in the first place.

Can a "genuinely independent scientist" even get noted? Apparently, even here, the lobbyists are in control on both sides. I personally lean toward GaH's #3. But, as is obvious in all of these debates; what we think means little. Oh well. Merry Christmas (my belied), or whatever suits you at this hopefully respectful holiday period.

Merlyn; You are correct; they do have the "right". But it is no longer a "right" when it infringes directly on someone else. So, exercise your rights anywhere you want, as long as they do not try to trump others.

From my eavesdropping on kids in schools and on overnights, it has been apparent to me that the very large majority of boys are still VERY uncomfortable with the idea of being gay, or being around them. Their responses are generally to avoid, but occasionally overt physical responses that are added problems. They often can talk about fairness and acceptance, but when actually confronted they react the opposite. And this would also be the case with many parents who give vocal support for acceptance in BSA, but would NEVER allow their son to be involved should it become a reality. Much of this is due to issues that GaHillBilly points out. This simply is reality when a very large majority of people are not open to a certain idea or style of living. They can verbally be accepting, even treat people with respect as long as it does not seem to actually become a personal thing. Once it does become personal in some manner, they will react far differently. So, we would likely see BSA fairly quickly be decimated. I realize there are a few on these boards that will NEVER face these realities, as to them, everyone should have the right to do whatever they want, no matter how if effects the large majority. Just observations and opinion.

Ken; It is good that your son and friends find these things interesting. I agree that we can keep the "outing in scouting", and still embrace new technology and ideas. Much of the newer tech stuff does work for many things in the outdoors. It is finding the balance that is so hard much of the time. A few years back, I was completely against anything electronic on outings. Now, on rides, they keep me sane, as many simply become immersed in their games or music devices. But, a few, always continue to be involved in the real world, actually seeing things along the route and talking to me. At camp, I can see how some of these devices can be of use. Someone a while back, on one of these boards, noted that if we give them firm, specific expectations regarding the devices, then "trust them", few will break that trust. If someone does, we simply have an opportunity to discuss scout spirit. We do though need to still make them understand that the basic skills still have a place, and they need to know them should the batteries fail, or the reception is bad or non-existent. One of the earliest skills in scouting was building a fire. But, there was never a requirement it be done without matches. They accepted that matches were a tool, and they were okay. They did have to do it with no more than two. The other fire making skills were taught and often were centers of challenges, but the basic requirement was still matches. So, we find ways, and continue to get them to view the world outside the mundane and familiar. Yours in Scouting,

Listened to the centennial broadcast at 7PM Central. It was interesting, but pretty much just repeated info already available on the web with a bit of effort. They touched on upcoming plans for making the program more palatable, the new Hispanic outreach tests, and efforts to bring more technology into use without taking the outdoors out. The short video at the end from the centennial tour that starts in Pasadena was interesting. It was hosted by one of the Eagle Scouts from the survivor program. They also discussed the new Jamboree site in more detail than I had seen as yet. The entire half hour will be up on the web within a day or two, and they will supposedly answer submitted questions sent by viewers who registered earlier as planning to view. They indicated that they received about 6,000, though many were similar. Anyone else listen in?

While we should always be disappointed when individuals, both adults and young people, sometimes make bad decisions, even if they "are" scouts. On the other hand, it simply is reflective of the fact that scouts are still simply kids. The perception that they will not make poor choices is a reaction to the public image that was developed over the past century. And, stats seem to support the idea that scouts who have more than a fleeting participation "do" have fewer negative situations in their lives than those that have not. Maybe the fact that the image is still in play is a good thing. Certainly the sarcastic comments, such as "he is such a boy scout", are actually complimentary. Even back in 1960, the BSA quietly sent a number of scouts and leaders home from the NJ in Colorado Springs due to being caught with prostitutes. Police arrested hundreds of them at the Jamboree. Temptation and immaturity are part of growing up; and how young people deal with it says a lot about them and their adult guidance. So, this really should have little effect on BSA, as they did what they could it would seem. Now, if it turns out that this had been going on for a long time and it was known by the local scout leaders with nothing being done, then it could have fallout. That does not appear to be the case.

Would suggest that the moderators move this to the "Political" forum, as it will likely get a lot of that type of comment and opinion. Thanks.

My problem is that even with email, they hardly ever respond. Most admit to seldom checking mail; and, as noted, many parents simply forget, or do not feel it necessary to pass on much of the time. They too are bad about even looking at the email. Sometimes wonder how they ever get by if they never read stuff.

It all depends on of whom you are asking the questions, and what the questions really are. I would suspect that a simple query to most people as to whether or not medical care in the country needs to be improved, especially insurance, you would get a yes in a very large percentage. But, if you ask about the current bill, your results will be a lot different. The real problem is that most of the congress critters growling and whining about how bad it is are not offering much in the way of alternatives. Even their constituents would likely be in the "something needs to be done" category. So, whatever happens with this bill, hopefully they will not simply forget it should nothing come of it as it is now. Maybe I am missing something; but I think I am close to the mark here.

Was at our local office this afternoon and saw a new batch of Eagle Certificates. There is now no signature of the Honorary President at all. It is simply not there anymore. Earlier this year, they still had Bush on it; so guess they were using the older ones up. The cert itself actually looked pretty good, as did the latest card version. So, is this the latest trend; or is it simply a stop gap, and the Honorary spot will be returned at a later date?

How about National springing for it as an east coast urban center? With proper development, it could become a gem in their National camping possibilities. Imagine being able to develop a tour of the surrounding area for your troop while not spending a small fortune for a place to stay in the city. This could be offered for international units too. Depending on size, the council trying to sell could also instead, build their own office there with the cost of rent in the Empire State Building. If they already have the land, the cost of construction would be absorbed by the money saved on rent. Of course, lots of things I have no knowledge of regarding access and so on.

Eamonn; While I understand your comment about believing we failed certain kids, we do not know for sure what impact even a short span of involvement has on these boys. Many adults with whom I have spoken when in a public place in uniform, such as a scouting display, or selling popcorn, have spoken fondly of their "short" time in the program, and how that experience had an effect on their later life. Surely, we lose far too many early, but every one we win, even if we do not know, is worth the efforts. Personally, I have had 2 young men come up to me as young adults and thank me for their time in our unit, and the direction we were able to give them. One young man specifically noted that he found the Oath and Law a worthwhile aide to redirecting himself after falling into the abyss of drugs. He was very proud to have been "clean" for a number of years at that point. So, we never really know if we lost them completely, or simply gave them something to ponder as they get older.