skeptic

So Merlyn, you think everyone should get to choose when they are able to use a facility, even if it is in conflict with some other group or individual. So, when the Zoological society at the San Diego Zoo has a special set of hours for members to attend and see new things, or simply enjoy as members, someone who is not a member should have the right to participate during that time too, even though they do not meet requirements? Or, the Southern California Surfing association arranges for a blocked off beach area for their surfing contest. I want to surf there during that period, even though I am not a member or even able to surf well enough to participate in the contest; but I should be allowed to because I want to? I can sue if they won't let me go to the zoo at their special time, or surf on that specific beach at that specific time? There are benefits for "paying" for things, like the upkeep of the zoo, or the maintenance of facilities. In this case, it is a time blocked off specifically for the organization's members. Who do you think is paying for the equipment used at the beach facility, or the upkeep of the pool, amphitheater, and campsites in Balboa? It is not the city. Who asked the scouts to build and maintain the beach facility? Other youth groups, with the blessing of the city. Now, they should lose the use because somebody is thin skinned or can't make plans based on other peoples' schedules? Such obtuse reasoning is simply too irrational. With that reasoning, then I should have sued 25 years ago when I tried to reserve a site at the Balboa camp for my troop during our spring break, but couldn't due to its meeting rooms, amphitheater, and the surrounding areas being booked by an outside group that did not want boys possibly interfering with their day program they had going on on the premises. We really only needed it for camping at night; but we had to abide by the rules about bookings. So, we went to the Camp Fire camp area. When it happened the next year as well, we simply went somewhere else. That is what reasonable people do; find alternatives.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Whatever the convoluted decision by these questionable solons finally is, it is still nonsense IMHO. I continue to wonder how anyone with any kind of self esteem would lend themselves to such foolish reasoning as to say they are somehow "injured" by even the thought or presence of the BSA, or any other group with beliefs with which they may not agree. How weak must their ego be if they are threatened or emotionally scarred by an idea held by someone else with whom they have not even made contact? It is much like the stupidity of a complaint by the Somis, Ca. man who threatened a suit against the city of Ventura because they had a lighted cross, related historically by the way to the very founding of the city, on the hill above the town. They had to occasionally see this terrible thing while driving by on the freeway over a mile away, or if they should happen to look in the right direction while visiting the area. Such insecurity does not say much for them; and neither does this San Diego nonsense say much for the people bringing suit.

Another really odd ruling from 9th Circuit. Not only is it strange, but also 4 judges recused themselves. What does that say about this whole thing? Read in the BSA Legal link, or google it.

In ours, new Ordeal members get a service flap as part of completion of the Ordeal; but the primary flap, which is restricted to 4 per life, cannot be purchased until Brotherhood is completed. At that time, they can buy two; one for Ordeal and one for Brotherhood. A third can be bought for Vigil, and one more for completion of a local hike, approved by the lodge, to the peak featured on the flap. Incoming members from another lodge cannot buy flaps to cover past levels, so when I joined as a Brotherhood member, I was restricted to 3 max. But, as noted, most Ordeal members disappear after the initial weekend. Also, it is really sad that few members attend Ordeal weekends unless they are going for Brotherhood. Most who do are adults, rather than youth. I cannot help but think that many of the changes in election and ceremony have contributed to the once high esteem OA membership had. Now that it is pretty much a "make 1st Class and camp 15 days and nights, including one summer camp" rubber stamp in a majority of units, it has lost a lot of its luster. And I see the same thing happening in some units regarding Eagle, unfortunately.

Not sure why you might feel a Vigil knot was needed. If you are active, then you should be wearing the arrow ribbon with the Vigil device on it. Why would you need a knot?

Would be great if that were the case in Southern California. Even pre-typed in doc format has much chance of showing up in print, especially if it is about something already occurred like Eagle dinners, or annual meetings. At least we can post on-line now to a blog; but it is not the same. Oh well, what can you do but keep trying.

If the pro's on this subject would simply stop the foolish "in your face" attitude, it would surely be a lot less negative. As Pack has said, Gays have been, and are in the program; but they do not seem to have had the need to make it "an issue", so it wasn't/isn't. But, both sides of the argument tend to wear blinders and are unlikely to change spots based on what is said here. Even though I agree with the current policy over "no policy"; I would prefer that it be made a CO decision on a local level. Eventually it will like work itself out. But it would likely happen more quickly if "radicals" on either position would stop their idiocy. JMHO

NJ; thanks for the reminder. "Sexual orientation was not an issue until sometime in the late 20th century; and then 'Somebody' made it an issue.! Wonder who that was? Also, I rather wonder why someone that is so upset about this to take away the privilege is not also suing to make the Council stop starting all their meetings with an invocation. Isn't that somehow also not legal? Inquiring minds want to know.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Here is material from the city's website regarding this. The actual termination decision in 2006 seems to not be available anywhere, which seems odd to me. Also, the final approval of the resolution is pretty sloppy if the minutes are to be noted. I also found it sad that while perusing minutes for the month of May in 2007, I could not help but notice how many comments and concerns about out of control youth were there. 11-16-06 Transmitting a resolution approving the termination of the arrangement with the Philadelphia Coucil of the Boy Scouts, or its successor, the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, whereby the Boy Scouts Council occupies a City building located at 22nd and Spring Streets. (File No. 060877) 1 5/31/07 STATED - INTRO. OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS 2 of the first resolution. 3 CHIEF CLERK: A resolution 4 approving the termination of the 5 arrangement with the Philadelphia 6 Council of the Boy Scouts or its 7 successor, the Cradle of Liberty 8 Council of the Boy Scouts, whereby the 9 Boy Scouts Council occupies a city 10 building located at 22nd and Spring 11 Streets. 12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: The 13 Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 14 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: I was 15 going to move for the adoption, but I 16 think Councilman O'Neill wants to -- 17 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: Madam 18 President? 19 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: Yes? 20 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: I'm not 21 sure what it does. Would you read the 22 resolution? 23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: I'm 24 sorry. Was the resolution circulated; 25 do we know? 58 2 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: No, it 3 hasn't been circulated. It's an 4 approval of a lease, which 5 traditionally is not circulated, but I 6 don't have a problem with -- 7 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: I'm sorry. 8 The question is: Can we approve a 9 lease with a resolution? 10 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: Yes, yes. 11 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: Okay. 12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: 13 Could you please -- 14 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: It's 15 approving the termination of a lease. 16 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: Oh, the 17 termination. I'm sorry. Never mind. 18 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: 19 Unfortunately. 20 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: Do 21 you still want it read? 22 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: No. 23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: Okay. 24 The Chair recognizes 25 Councilman Clarke for a motion on the 59 1 5/31/07 STATED - INTRO. OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS 2 resolution. 3 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: Madam 4 President, I move for the adoption of 5 the resolution. 6 (Motion seconded.) 7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: It 8 has been moved and properly seconded 9 that the resolution be adopted. 10 All those in favor will 11 signify by saying aye. 12 Those opposed? 13 COUNCILMAN O'NEILL: No. 14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: 15 Okay. The record will reflect that 16 Councilman O'Neill voted in the 17 negative, and all other members voted 18 in the affirmative; therefore, the 19 resolution is adopted.5/31/07 STATED - INTRO. OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS (Resolution No. 070522) RESOLUTION Approving termination of the arrangement with the Philadelphia Council of the Boy Scouts, or its successor, the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, whereby the Boy Scouts Council occupies a City building located at 22nd and Spring Streets. WHEREAS, In 1928 the City of Philadelphia gave the Philadelphia Council of the Boy Scouts (now known as the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, and referred to here as the Boy Scouts) permission to build, at its own expense, a building located on City land located at 22nd and Spring Streets; and WHEREAS, As reflected in the grant of permission, set forth in an ordinance of Council approved December 14, 1928, the building was to become at once the property of the City; and WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts, pursuant to that grant of permission, built a building at that location, which it currently used as a regional headquarters; and WHEREAS, The national Boy Scouts organization has a policy of discrimination based on sexual orientation with respect to its members and scoutmasters and has required the local Boy Scouts to implement its discriminatory policy by excluding participation on the basis of sexual orientation; and WHEREAS, The local Boy Scouts unfortunately has implemented that discriminatory policy and publicly has declared its intention to continue doing so; and WHEREAS, The non-discrimination provisions of the Citys Home Rule Charter and the Citys Fair Practices Ordinance reflect broad City policy abhorring discrimination and the Boy Scouts policy and conduct is directly contrary to the principles of equal access and opportunity enshrined in Philadelphia law; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to this policy, the City seeks to ensure that the benefits of City subsidies are made available to all citizens on a non-discriminatory basis; and WHEREAS, The Citys ongoing subsidy of a discriminatory organization through the allowance of free use of a building is directly contrary to the Citys policy and practice of refusing to support discrimination, and of ensuring non-discriminatory access to City benefits; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the terms of the permission granted to the Boy Scouts, the building and property is to be surrendered to the City within one year after notice of a desire to terminate given by the Commissioners of Fairmount Park, with the approval of the Mayor and City Council; and WHEREAS, The Fairmount Park Commission and the Mayor, through the City Solicitor, have provided notice of ejectment from the property to the Boy Scouts on July 20, 2006, subject to withdrawal upon agreement by the Boy Scouts to pay fair market rent; and WHEREAS, The Fairmount Park Commission has approved at its meeting on July 24, 2006 the July 20, 2006, notice and has approved termination of the arrangement with the Boy Scouts, subject to withdrawal upon agreement by the Boy Scouts to pay fair market rent or the Boy Scouts ending its discriminatory policy and practice; and WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts have failed to respond to the City regarding the July 20, 2006 letter; now therefore RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, That termination of the arrangement with the Boy Scouts, whereby the Boy Scouts occupy City land and a City building located at 22nd and Spring Streets, is hereby approved, subject to withdrawal upon agreement by the Boy Scouts to pay fair market rent or the Boy Scouts ending its discriminatory policy and practice. Introduced October 25, 2007 Councilmembers Kelly, O'Neill, Ramos and Krajewski RESOLUTION Calling upon The City of Philadelphia and Fairmount Park Commission to allow the Boy Scouts to remain in the facility located at 22nd & Spring Streets until they obtain a suitable new location, and urging them to compensate the Boy Scouts in full, for any and all improvements which they have made to the facility throughout the term of their lease. WHEREAS, In 1928, the City of Philadelphia gave the Philadelphia Council of the Boy Scouts (now known as the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, and referred to here as the Boy Scouts) permission to build, at its own expense, a building located on City land located at 22nd and Spring Streets; and WHEREAS, As reflected in the grant of permission, set forth in an ordinance of Council approved December 14, 1928, the building was to become at once the property of the City; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the terms of the permission granted to the Boy Scouts, the building and property is to be surrendered to the City within one year after notice of a desire to terminate given by the Commissioners of Fairmount Park, with the approval of the Mayor and City Council; and WHEREAS, The Fairmount Park Commission and the Mayor, through the City Solicitor, provided notice of eviction from the property to the Boy Scouts on July 20, 2006, subject to withdrawal upon agreement by the Boy Scouts to pay fair market rent; and WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts notice of eviction was inopportune, and does not allow the Boy Scouts adequate time to search for a suitable new facility; and WHEREAS, Over the course of their lease, the Boy Scouts have paid for numerous improvements to the facility located at 22nd and Spring Streets which is a city owned facility and thus, the City of Philadelphia should compensate them for the improvements; and WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts have provided countless community services to The City of Philadelphia and have offered innumerable programs for hundreds of thousands of children since 1928, all at no cost to the City; now therefore RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, That it hereby Calls upon The City of Philadelphia and Fairmount Park Commission to allow the Boy Scouts to remain in the facility located at 22nd & Spring Streets until they obtain a suitable new location, and urges them to compensate the Boy Scouts in full, for any and all improvements which they have made to the facility throughout the term of their lease.

While I would love to think that the comment about cool is not pertinent, I am afraid it may be too close to the truth. I have noticed over the years that fewer and fewer units seem to have even a slight clue as to what it means to be respectful during flag ceremonies, much less how to actually march and do parade maneuvers. When I was a scout and explorer back in the dark ages we did the good old O'Grady drills and had a color guard unit with the white leggings and even plugged special parade rifles. We were sponsored by a VFW post, and they were serious about us looking good. I have tried a few times to get my own boys to do some semblance of proper marching, but they seem to have very little interest. While I am sure there are likely a few extremely spiffy units out there, they likely are not very common. Just to get them to stand at attention for more than 30 seconds is a challenge. A few years back I mentioned trying to put together an Eagle/NESA honor guard team for local flag presentations. The leaders of the other units all said it would never happen; that it would take too much time and commitment from the older scouts. March in a parade? Not likely! JMG(grumpy)O

Wonder what the feelings are about this one. While I tend to think the companies reap what they sow, it is a bit scary to think what will happen if they do go under. There is some rational for bailing them out, in my mind, probably at least as much as the banks, and very likely more, as they are more related to the real people who labor in the middle class trenches. What say you all? Please try to not go off on tangents of vitriol and non-scout comments.

While tying the correct knot may be preferable, the real issue is that he was able and willing to act to rectify the situation, and that he had the ability to get support of his patrol. That is the ideal of being a leader, and what we hope may happen with our own charges at some point. What makes this movie so appealing to many of us is that it does an exceptional job of showing both the dedication of concerned adults, and the ability of a "fun" program to develop young minds and character.

One of the things Scouting still does if kept in its purpose is to wean scouts from the over-protective mode too prevalent today. As GW points out, that includes numerous skills besides swimming. The apparent great interest by many youth, including non-scouts, in the recent book (the title escapes me; sorry)that challenges them to try things no longer normal to their generation certainly shows that they are still interested. Signaling was a skill that required a lot of effort and time for many of us; but it taught more than the skill. The perseverance required was itself a learning tool.

The local elementary school libraries love them; I take my read copies in to one of them every few months. They seem to be one of the most popular items in the library I am regularly told. Also heard rumor that they plan on putting merit badge books out in regular stores as well. Anyone seen them yet?

This being Veterans' Day, I thought I might see how others feel about some type of simple adult uniform device to recognize those who have served in any capacity of the military. NOT a knot!! Perhaps a simple device worn along with the service stars; one type, or equal sized emblems symbolizing the particular branch. Just curious.

For a number of years we had something a bit more detailed at our COR. Each patrol was given 5 ropes, I think, and they had to suspend a log in the air from one point to another. They had to use a clove hitch and timber hitch on the log, a taut-line to raise it up and tighten, join ropes using square and sheet bend, start with two halfs, and take up slack using a sheet-bend in one longer rope. Of course it was both timed and judged on correct knots. Have seen a good patrol do it in a minute or less. They were given up to 15 minutes if necessary. Great contest.

Last night on our localish station from Santa Barbara they were talking to a few people on the street. A woman informed the reporter that she is ready for the end, and is preparing herself for it through prayer. How can people be so completely illogical just because someone with whom they do not agree is elected? It is not the praying part that bothers me, as I do think that is certainly in order for the country as a whole, and for the president elect particularly as he confronts such a huge uphill climb. Meanwhile, it appears we will be sitting here with another proposition passed by the electorate that will mean very little as the ACLU, and other groups are already beginning their legal preparations. It will likely be put in limbo indefinitely, as the case is fought in court. And, this being what it is, it will probably eventually be tossed out by the state and federal courts as unconstitutional. Meanwhile, millions of dollars that could have served a better purpose has been squandered by both sides. How sad.

This is one of those areas where I sort of look the other way regarding the patch. I have attended two, one as a boy in 1960, and one as a leader in 1985. I have the 85 on my current shirt, and may eventually have the 60 on one that fits (it is on an older shirt that shrank in the closet). Kids should want to know what that was like, IMHO; what were earlier gatherings about and what occurred. Also, they are simply part of the history of the program. So, in this case, the "uniform police" can ticket me.

Yep, it is still leading; but the results are narrowing; and it may take days to sort it all out because there is a large amount of absentee ballots involved. We will see. Then the court will immediately get involved and say it is unconstitutional and tie it up some more. I can see the Ninth Circuit gearing up already.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Sorry, but the idea that people without kids is "creepy" is lame IMO. When people no longer have kids in the program do they suddenly lose their abilities to contribute constructive service? Are we to simply deny skills offered by experienced scouters, or scouts who either have had their kids leave home as adults, or were not blessed with kids for some reason? Just think of it; if Lemuel and his wife had not adopted Whitey, they would not have been able to be leaders. Then where would we be? What would Scouting be without FOLLOW ME BOYS?

Lem, the reason for asking was simply to get a better perspective as to where you may be getting your personal thoughts. If you are not directly involved, as was just noted, then your ideas are not necessarily based on practical use within the actual program. There is nothing wrong with outside comments and observations; but too often they are based on incorrect assumptions or bias from outside the program. I think you might find some of your ideas have already been tried. Others perhaps will be. When someone does, and reports back on their levels of success, it should be useful. Thank you for clarifying your position. And certainly continue to participate. Just try to keep an open mind, and please try to comment on what works from your perspective as well.

Lem; still waiting for clarification as to what your involvement is. If you are actually in the program, you know that you can suggest these things to your group and see if they will run with it. Then, maybe it can be reported on. If part, or even all, works, then perhaps it could be expanded to other groups. But, every troop is different, and direct competition is not the primary focus in scouting. In our troop, there is statement visible above the board; "Live the 12". That is the focus. Finding ways to hopefully instill that into their lives, not only now, but into the future.

So Lem, how are you involved in helping possibly solve these problems you say are so prominent? Going back and looking at your posts, you indicate you were a scout in the 80's, but now you don't get them. Sounds to me you are not really involved, only want to stir the pot somehow. Perhaps I am wrong; but it surely looks that way to me. Yes, leaders can be more fit; but that is not the only criterion, as has been noted already. And, in many troops, the older leaders have stepped back to be more counselors and turned the physical elements over to younger, more capable men. We need both types in the program. Over the years, I have had a few instances where so called fit individuals, both adults and youth, have come on backpacks with us and not able to "hack it", even though they would look down at scouts as being weak and lame. I would wager that a large percentage of sports oriented individuals could not make it on a fifty miler, or possibly even a five miler. And once there, they would not be able to fend for themselves as well as most of the first year scouts. Quit trying to compare non-similar programs. And open your eyes to the realities that most people are not regular "winners". Failure or average is far more real. Scouts say, "On my honor, I will do my best". That is where we should be putting our emphasis. And yes, we can do better, which we all recognize.

http://derbytalk.com http://grandprix-race-central.com/ Perhaps these may be of help or interest here.

Because he is a Lawyer and has fantasies of taking down the BSA.