skeptic

bp, (lower case used purposely) the facts are that there are far more high adventure activities done by scouts across the country than there were in years past, especially if you use percentages rather than actual numbers. We DO NOT live in the hay day of Scouting when it had no competition to speak of, and when it was really simple to go camping nearby. But, while there are units that do not give proper attention to the outdoor program, even some of those, when they do, camp at a higher level of adventure than many did years past. IF, a scout actually is given Eagle without camping, then there is a major problem in that unit and council; but I suspect that is just one of the many exagerated claims coming from the "sky is falling" crowd. No one can fix your obviously distasteful and difficult issues with Scouting in the past. But, it is true that your posts lean very much to the negative; and even when you have a positive comment, you tend to nullify it with more negative. None of us that have our eyes and ears working do not see there are issues that need solutions in our programs and especially in certain aspects of National. But, many of the newer subjects and vocations being offered offer new perspectives and even opportunities in the outdoors. Incorporating science directly with outdoor excursions, whether hikes, camping, or on site investigations of nature is a huge step forward. Finding ways to challenge boys in today's world is a real challenge, especially if you hope to link it to the ourdoors in some manner; but it can and is being done. Can it be improved upon? Always. There have always been troops that did not meet the muster so to speak in the eyes of many leaders, and even fellow scouts. But, in a world overcrowded with choices for youth and adults alike, Scouting still is a premier program, even with its numerous drawbacks and challenges that are the result of the 21st century and a changed society. Just the way I see it. But I am still a skeptic, especially when it comes to "throwing out the baby with water".

The Scout Oath and Scout law are not the basis for governing the United States. It is not suggested to be the governing directive; it suggested that those that work, or claim to work, in our representative government remember the basic tenets of the Oath and Law in how they do that work. You know, try and actually simply be "Trustworthy", and to have the "Courage" to stand against the party when you really know they are misguided, or be courteous to the opposition even if you do not like them or agree with them, especially if they are in what is generally seen as a position of respect, like President or head of the Senate or House, and stuff like that.

According to the National Council of BSA, one hundred and ninety-one members of the 113th Congress have participated in Scouting, either as a boy, an adult, or both. Thirty of those are Eagles as well. Below is a list of the individuals who are Eagles. My challenge to these individuals, especially the Eagles, would be for them to take a serious self-evaluation and consider whether they are truly living up to the tenets of the Scout Oath and Law. My personal perception is that the answer is mostly NO; but that is simply my opinion. And that applies to almost the entire membership of our Congress, as well as the Executive and Judicial branches too. Unfortunately, I do not see these comments, if they were even seen by the group, will have much effect. But, if even a small percentage takes it into consideration, it would be a plus. In the 113th Congress (2013-15) there are 11 Eagle Scouts, (comprising about 14% of the male Senate membership). 6 are Republicans; 5 democrats. They are: Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Mike Crapo (R-ID) Mike Enzi (R-WY) Mike Lee (R-UT) Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Ben Nelson (D-NE) Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Pat Toomey (R-PA) Also are 19 Eagles in the House currently; 15 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Representative John Garamendi (D); CA Representative Dana Rohrabacher ®: CA Representative Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D); GA Representative Gary Charles Peters (D); MI Representative Sam Graves ®; MO Representative Christopher H. Smith ®; NJ Representative Chris Collins ®; NY Representative Steve Stivers ®; OH Representative Jim Bridenstine ®; OK Representative Greg Walden ®; OR Representative Lou Barletta ®; PA Representative Mike G. Fitzpatrick ®; PA Representative Glenn W. "GT" Thompson ®; PA Representative Jim Cooper (D); TN Representative Phil Roe, M.D. ®; TN Representative Louie Gohmert ®; TX Representative Jeb Hensarling ®; TX Representative Pete Sessions ®; TX Representative David B. McKinley ®; WV

Is it worth the effort? Yes!!

Yes, negative press stays in ppl's heads longer than the positive stuff. It does not help that the negative is almost always publicized by most papers and such, but you have to lean over backwards to get anything positive beyoned a paragraph or line buried in a community activity page with dozens of other similar ones. Reality says few people see those things, especially in our too fast world where if people even look at a paper, they simply scan it.

(The only people living on the Pacific Plate are in Hawaii and other islands.) Actually, not true. The San Andreus fault is the break of the North American plate as the Pacific pushed under. So there is a piece of the Continental plate that is riding on the ocean side of the break on top of the Pacific plate, slowly sliding northward an inch or so a year. So, technically, that part of California fell into the Pacific long ago and over time we never will see will be neighbors with Canada. On the other hand, since the piece is on top of the Pacific plate, I guess you could be right too, as those living there are not actually on the Pacific plate, but still on the broken piece of the continental one. Whatever, believe it or not, most of us in California are not completely wacko; but those that are cannot not easily be missed or ignored.

We can let the craziest of us here fall into the ocean, instead of continuing to ride the Pacific plate like they do now.

Probably Pack. Guess most scouters would be only required to do the first two, as they likely lived there a while. Still, one more cost to absorb which will put a damper on some volunteers, whether in scouts or otherwise. Be interesting to see how they would even police such a thing though; would almost need to be voluntary in many instances. Scouts of course are supposed to have registered leaders, so I guess they would be easier to check on.

How about hanky pankey?

Gee is what you say when you are incredulous. Haw is what you say when you do not agree with the mule headed person with whom you are verbally fencing.

A Scout is Reverent. No stipulation as to where or how. How hard can it be?

A Scout is Reverent. Will be leaving soon to participate in our unit's annual Scout Sunday ritual. The scouts usher and greet, along with parents, while I am the litergist for the service. We also run the between services coffee gathering. This year we again have an official cub pack to join us. Hope my voice does not give me issues, as have a bit of the infamous stuffy head and heavy chest. Interesting how this small annual activity does so much positive in our unit relationship with the church.

Here is the link to the photo taken of the circle. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153137114904248&set=p.10153137114904248&type=1

There was a memorial service and burial today of a long time scouter who served on camp staff for about 30 years as range master. Also was a Marine that fought in the Pacific. His memorial required the LDS church facility to add extra space, and about a third were scouters. Some came from states away to honor him. At the cemetary, after the main service, we formed a scout circle around the casket on its stand and sang the Scout Vespers, the campfire tradition by the staff at its close at our local camp. A very moving tribute to a fine man.

When we refer to grade issues, can you be more specific? While getting all A's or A's and B's is commendable, getting C's is not the end of the world, especially if the average is higher. And frankly, even a D, if the boy tried but simply did not get it is not a reason to panic. Part of the problem with many of our youth is this thing called grade inflation, or the idea that average is bad. All this does is put more pressure on many, to the point where they hit a mental wall. Sometimes, maturity will mend it all. While I was in the top of my class with what was then called college prep, I really did not do overly well my last two years, especially in math and science; and my first two years of college at a community college I managed only a 2.01 GPA. After a year working and four in the service I went back and made the dean's list and eventually got my teaching credential in California with close to a 4.0. Do what you can to encourage the scout to "do his best". But as noted by others, try not to add more pressure. We are only seeing this from your description, so our comments should be taken in that perspective. Good luck.

Found this piece in the Los Angeles Times to be interesting and bit humorous. I particularly liked the ending comments; " giving this new version of PC the respect it deserves warrants a whole new term. So what have we got? Insatiable aggrievedness? Compulsive didacticism? Sanctimonious kneejerkery? Any of those would beat political correctness. Because PC's been beat." http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...03-column.html

With the ongoing drum beat about various generational groups, I continue to feel left out. I thought maybe I was missing something, but still have not found "my" generation to have a spot on the generational time line. Speaking with a gentleman over breakfast yesterday, born a year before me in 1943, he has noted the same thing. The boomers are always noted as starting in 1946 after the wars, and there is another group, the greatest generation that covers those up through 1940 or so who mostly fought in the war or contributed somehow. Those of us born from 1941-1945 seem to have simply been ignored. Should I be offended; especially in this day of taking offense at any tiny perceived slight? All of us had parents that went through the entire depression and war years, and grandparents that likely did also, but also remembered the previous century and WWI etc. We learned to be thrifty with things in general, not to spend money we did not have, respect adults, period, that school was important and you best not get in trouble there, that personal integrity was a virtue and hard work got you a better place in life, that the indigent more often than not needed a hand up, that manners were reflective of your upbringing, and lots of other things that seem to have lost traction or gone away almost entirely. Oh, and Boy Scouts for the most part were perceived as a benefit to the community, even if you were not involved directly, and they were respected for their efforts on behalf of community and country.

Not long after I became a SM, I had similar problems at times, and it was very frustrating. That was in the late 70's. I was on visit to my parents and asked my dad about it, as he had been involved with my brother and me in the 50's and early 60's. He just laughed and said that it was a problem back then too. Some people simply are not willing to go outside their personal focus unless seriously prodded. And, they get away with it because we do not make it obvious we need them to help. Of course, there are a few that are simply takers, and you will be lucky to have their kids regularly; and those often are the scouts that are most in need of direction in their lives. Still, if you do not ask directly, many will assume; and you know the story about that word.

Years ago we rode bikes up the coast to Summerland just the other side of Carpenteria. About a 20 something mile ride. One of my senior scouts, who at the time was about 18 and either just starting college at USC or finishing high school, was the leader, since he had done the ride a few times. I was only vaguely familiar with the area, though I did know somewhere nearby was a secretive small beach with "options". Anyway, we stopped along the bluff, and the young man pointed out the trail down to the beach and suggested we go down. Another adult stayed with most of the boys and a few of us climbed down. We only walked about fifty yards around a point when I realized where we were. As I made us hastily retreat, the young man is hysterical. Worse, I hear voices on the bluff; a couple of the younger boys had found a top side view and were hollering something to the effect of "turn over" as the other adult up there is trying to get them away. Looking back of course it is pretty funny. But I learned another lesson. "Make sure you know where you are going in detail, and do not trust a teenager's judgment." On the other hand, the only people there were probably well over fifty, or very weathered younger ones. Fortunately, I did not have any overly upset parents on return. Of course, that was in the early 80's before hyper sensitivity was the vogue.

Hey M'; can you please give us a rest from your excessive pride in causing issues with BSA and public schools. We have heard this over and over for way too long. You certainly are not impressing anyone, only making yourself seem vindictive and spiteful. Of course, I know you could really care less; but it is simply tiresome.

If our "purpose" in life is to do everything in our power to denigrate those with whom we disagree, and feel that ONLY our beliefs and thoughts have validity, then in reality, "we have no purpose, only an existance".

Ah yes, yester-year, when vanity and fear were seldom an issue and all males shared facilities most places and nobody seemed worse for wear. Kids took real showers in school too; and they were group stalls. Can you imagine?

I completely do not understand the continued bigotry towards the LDS in Scouting, and outside of it. But, if all scouts are brothers, then those that have an issue with LDS units and their members are not very good scouts and scouters. So they often go home on Saturday at council and district events. So they have some unfamiliar program elements. Why is that an issue outside of those in those units? As LeCastor says, it is shallow. And often, the perceived problems are built on things that happened years ago. Locally, our LDS groups have become much more involved, as they have an umbrella of units so to speak in districts, so the individual Stake units can act together for many activities. My understanding is that this comes from higher up, as they have realized the drawbacks of units being too small. Whatever, just because the approach is different does not make it any less Scouting connected.

" The Klan was essentially a home-grown terrorist organization. I suspect we could name others as well if we wanted " I consider gangs that prey on neighborhoods as home grown terrorists; and I do not understand why we do not respond to them the same way we do to those from the outside.

While I understand that this is theoretically a place to discuss political and religious issues, but I have always thought it was still a Scouting related board. If that is the case, then at least a modicum of adherance to tenets of Scouting would apply, The test would be whether or not you would wish to expose your scouts or other young people to what is said. If not, then it probably does not belong here. There are other places where crude, vitriolic, and hateful language can be aired. One would hope this is not one of them. Just my personal opiniion, but I would think that most regular readers and posters here would agree there ARE limits, even on this specific forum.