skeptic

I think a couple of things. First, these lawyers are simply money grubbers. Look at their web site and tell me they are not, remembering that they get a huge portion of any judgment. They are no better than the people allowed to advertise now on TV looking for someone, anyone who may have had ill effects from drugs, or been in an accident, and so on. They are taking things decades old and beating the bushes until they find someone to cooperate with them because they think they will get rich. Read the actual info on the Ineligible Volunteer files that has been posted, especially the details of those in the sampling done in the research. A majority WERE brought to the authorities, and many were prosecuted; we really do not know how many were specifically not due to lack of concrete evidence, parental choice, or simply the era they were in. And the files DID keep some out by being there, even in the age before computers. It continues to astonish me how people cannot understand that much of the problem with these suits is that the occurrences happened decades ago when the general public and community responses were completely different. It was also before EASY cross referencing by computer, so it had to be done by phone or mail. Of course today, almost any REAL evidence or actual witnesses are gone in most of the cases being DUG out of these files by the ambulance chaser lawyers. Take these facts and add to them the current antipathy by many against the BSA in general, along with the way the media skews everything, and these guys see slam dunks. Does anybody remember the earlier "sexual predator" witch hunts that ruined peoples' lives when most were finally exonerated too late? As some have pointed out, these same people, if they were really trying to help people, would be digging in the far richer fields of schools and youth sports. But, they do not have the same media antipathy or the files that were kept in an attempt to actually keep some of this from occurring. But, as I have often said of late; common sense and actual reason are not generally seen in today's society.

Owning one may only mean there is one in the house; maybe left there by previous generations. Like any book, it is almost useless unless actually read, other than for a door-stop or some such thing.

Tico lives in Florida and is not a professional.

The idea that council or higher can ban dues from units is preposterous. Each unit is owned by its CO; and they set the rules regarding how the unit is funded. If there are actually any local councils that think they can do it, they are simply mistaken, and have no right to do so. If any executive here tried that they would be out on their ear..

Interesting responses, though some are a bit disappointing. While it is obvious that there are those that do not hold the rank in any real esteem, and that was a given, a few of the comments have indicated a disdain that is somewhat over the line, or so it seems to me. The more thoughtful are more to the real point. The reason I noted initially that I was not sure where this belonged was because the majority of these "Eagles" are those some still hold up as good examples who are in the middle our political morass. They are the ones that I certainly DO NOT hold up as good examples to scouts. But, reality is that being a "Boy Scout", whether Eagle, or simply a member, is construed as being weak and ineffective and often used as a put down. The simple idea of actually living up to the basic tenets of the Oath and Law is somehow simplistic and shows a naivete that is to be made fun of. But, of course, we still have those like Mike Rowe or the majority of the Eagle astronauts. Just wish those in the various levels of government would try to simply "Live the Twelve", and remember that duty to self is preceded by duty to God and country and duty to others when discussing the meaning of the scout emblem.

Not sure which place to put this; maybe it belongs in the more controversial forum. Thinking about how often we discuss the "honor" and "respect" Eagle Scouts so often are shown, and how they are such great positive role models in our society. And, this is primarily very true. But, I am finding myself more and more challenged to accept certain Eagles as particularly good examples to scouts or society. What is particularly embarrassing to me are the great many that now populate our government at high levels, both on the national and state levels. It seems to me that the majority of these individuals have forgotten the simple precepts of the Scout Oath and Law. Certainly few are adhering very well to them, based on their lack of simply doing the jobs for which they were elected. Some have come out with positions and statements that blatantly slap the ideals of Scouting directly across the face. Of course there are similar examples in other areas of our society; but the worst, and most egregious to me are the ones getting overpaid by us to run our country, states, and communities, yet do nothing but spar and barter for money and power for themselves and their immediate "connections". Maybe these are the Eagles that should be returning their medals, since they seem to have forgotten what it still represents, in spite of their actions.

Here is an Opinion piece from the L.A. Times back in April regarding this bill. It does a pretty good job of noting the problems beyond Scouting, though it is still obviously biased against BSA. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/12/opinion/la-ed-boy-scouts-20130412 What is really troublesome for me is that somehow we seem to think it is okay for our so called representatives to propose legislation that is punitive and a personal vendetta. If you look at the original sponsors, they are all anti BSA, and have even admitted the bill is specifically aimed at BSA. This is likely unconstitutional I would think. But, even if not, it is really bad representation.

Yep, it does remind of Ed and M. Is it time for that "pie" we used to speak about? Or would it just get thrown in faces?

Thanks for not calling me a "liar" too.

Moose'; You do realize don't you that no matter what you say, it will not appease him? If he disagrees with something, and another suggests that there is room for the awful "compromise", he starts shouting somehow that is making atheists (him) a second class citizen or something similar. Reality is that he is only made one if he allows it to be so; it is a personal problem, and none of us will solve it or his insecurity. JMHO of course.

The old furry beast has stuck his snout into the boards again. Good to see you Beavah.

An interesting piece from across the pond, guaranteed to stir the pot. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/

It is interesting the stories some post here, and the ones so far gotten from leaders and scouts just returned. Most of those with whom I have spoken have mostly positive comments, though they do note there were short comings in some areas. Still, it "seems" that the overall feedback I have gotten is no where nearly as awful as a few here seem to state. But, there are various levels and types of response to disappointment and discomfort by individuals. Maybe those I have met just have more flexible and positive attitudes and can look at difficulties and less than perfect experiences as opportunities for improvement going forward, rather than an excuse to complain and throw rocks. Just a thought and observation.

Thanks JoeBob; the positive always outweighs the negative.

All went well, and was a real sharing of scouting and family fellowship followed with an outstanding barbecue. Seems he will continue to aid his troop as he is able, though he will be a senior and is a full bore A.P. student. Thanks to all that offered congratulatory words.

Yes. One of his uncles on his mother's side is a doctor there, and helped him set it up.

For whatever reason, cannot PM you; not authorized. It is at the Las Flores School on Antonio Pkwy tomorrow. His name is Kathan.

Have waited a long time for someone in the family to complete his Eagle. Neither nephew did, nor my brother. But, the son of my older nephew has done it in spades. He will be presented the award on Saturday evening in Orange County. His project was making a special video to help families understand and cope with the challenges of a child in CHOC. He not only worked to do the the film, but also obtained the equipment and donated it to them. This has led to his further interest in film as a possible vocation, and he has since won honors for student film work at his high school. Hope to get a photo of him and me together to enter in the family list in the NESA Magazine.

Good to see you have returned. Always enjoy your well thought out posts and comments.

Our office no longer keeps a copy of the blue card, just the advancement report. So, if a merit badge is to verified as from a registered counselor, then it is up to the unit to do it. Most actually do; but I am sure there are a few that just shrug it off as a minor detail or unneeded chore.

Unneeded adult interference in growing up.

Please, lets not continue the vendettas against everything National into this too. While the original patrol system is not the same, it still exists; and in many units it does a very good job of doing what it was developed to do. Certain realities in our society dictate many of the rationales in today's softened strictures. We live in a super litigious culture where much of what we did easily and with little concern as youth (those of us from the earlier periods; the old guys) is now simply not allowed due to fears of legal issues and overly protective and fearful people. Ironically, at the same time, we allow things today, actually almost encourage some, that would have gotten people beat, jailed, or worse forty or fifty years ago. Still, while we continue to fight to keep the basic skills in the program, good units do. We also do things that would never even been attempted back then, due to newer technology and superior equipment. Most camping in the old days was done with the assistance of vehicles of some sort, either wagons, carts, pack animals, and so on. Almost any early memoir predating 1940 talks about getting there without carrying anything but basic stuff on their backs. I am not claiming that today is better than yesterday. What I am saying is that many of the comparisons are simply not true. I have a troop that is 92 years old; and fortunately I also have many photos from early days, as well as various short write ups of activities. They camped in orchards, on farms, and sometimes "drove" to the end of the road, set up camp, and day hiked. They also took their fishing poles, rifles, and sometimes small game traps, while having staples on the truck in which they arrived (literally; on top of the gear). The animosity a few continue to post is often simply over board and often, to anyone who has done any "serious" readings, obviously slanted and sometimes inaccurate. Am currently reading a book from 1961, THE BLACK PANTHER BANNER, about a Lone Scout group in the Wichita area in the thirties. Read the book THIRTEEN YEARS OF SCOUT ADVENTURE by Walsh, or early boys' magazines. You will see something of what I am speaking.

According to the IG, you should NOT. Can you? Yes, but it does not really belong there officially. It is not a National or World patch.

Very little has changed in the Insignia Guide over the last 20 years, other than a few items being added. The positions of various patches has remained basically the same for decades, including what goes above the right pocket. Way back when, you could wear two jambo patches, if one was world. Technically, the IG says jambo patches must be current above the pocket; but few of us would say anything about a past one there I am sure. It also says only two can be worn at a time, a world on the pocket and the must current National above it. Definitely says training course patch, even the one from Philmont, is worn on the right pocket. If is a losing battle though with some I am afraid, as they simply do not care.

Not sure if you are talking about the scout council or your group council. The scout council should have NO say in approval of a prayer; their only participation is the award itself and whatever the unit and family asks.