skeptic

The actual gore was not allowed to be seen, and it was usually pretty obvious who were the bad guys and what happened to them when they were bad. Even many of the bad guys were still polite to women, and kids were still expected to be respectful to adults, or they were punished and parents were still held accountable for their kids' actions. Of course, you left out the other things playing as well then, such as Ozzie and Harriet, Andy Griffin, Leave it to Beaver, Hazel, Dennis the Menace; all of them had some type of moral to the story. How many of these are now seen on modern TV. Parents are either not there, are idiots, are held up as models when they represent what was once considered to be anomalous in society, or allow the kids to get away with anything because they do not want to hurt the child's fragile ego. Husbands are often portrayed in similar manner. People that show what was once considered common courtesy and positive responses to others' troubles are now made fun of as being foolish or worse, and sometimes even called "a boy scout". As an aside on the cowboys and Indians; the NRA needed to take them in and give them training, as most of them could not hit the broad side of the barn unless they were having a draw down in the street. Of course shooting a revolver or trying to aim a rifle while on a running horse, often twisting backwards as well, was not the best way of being a successful shooter. Of course, the horses seldom stumbled either, even thought supposedly running at full gallop over rough terrain. Of course, we also all knew that Indians always said "How" when greeting you, and generally they always either sneaked up on you in ambush, or ran in large groups in circles without fear of being shot by the beleaguered white men. Maybe the ridiculous simplicity of the plots, and the awful acting lent itself to not being taken seriously.

The big questions are his reasons for hating them. Probably was not a good idea to do two major activities the same summer either, as burnout will occur, especially after the fact, which may affect the experience when reviewed later. If you are averse to heat and humidity, you will not like either location a good amount of the time. If you do not really like to hike, you might not enjoy Jambo, and certainly are not ready for Philmont. If you are the much discussed "gimme Scout", you will not enjoy having to possibly fend for yourself on occasion; you have to work with the team in both activities. If you did not put any effort into earning your spot in these activities you will likely have little appreciation of the opportunities.

"Be Prepared!!!"

Beavah, you must really enjoy talking to walls??

Not sure the definition of "commercial banking" in this case; but if it is making sure my small deposits are covered, then it probably is desirable. After all, it was partly due to the lack of that protection that the depression had such an impact. If a small bank goes belly up our money should still be protected in some manner; otherwise people will again be putting it in mattresses and burying it in the yard.

I fail to see any indication of a threat of taking guns away. It is odd to me how anyone with even basic common sense can read that into the suggestions. As Beavah says, what is feared from rational responsible rules; we would hope most gun owners already pretty much adhere to them anyway? Now these nuts that started screaming even before anything was put on the table are really out there. There does not seem to be anything in the Presidential directives that do anything more than try and strengthen rules already in existence by National consistency in their interpretations and enforcement. This whole paranoia and "sky is falling" reaction is very similar to the same thing we see in posters about AHG, blue cards, and so on. Instead of jumping to the worst case scenario you can possibly come up with, how about at least waiting until there is an actual, factual concern rather than being a chicken little?

Put on our district FB site; thanks.

Explain to me "where" anyone is taking away the SM (or assigned leader) signature please. This is from the link posted on the first page of this thread, and you can even see a copy of the actual card if you wish, but it would not copy for me. This same quote is the start of the discussion. Do not understand where all this other stuff is coming from. Merit Badge Blue Card Revised A new version of the Application for Merit Badge, No. 34124, commonly referred to as the blue card, is being released later in January 2013. The availability of the new card will vary locally, and the old cards are still acceptable as councils exhaust their inventories. The new version will remain the old familiar blue and the change is a small one, but as it takes effect it will make a significant difference in the process. On the front side (first tri-fold portion) above the unit leaders signature line, the statement with the word qualified is being changed to: I have discussed this merit badge with this Scout and recommended at least one merit badge counselor. The wording change has been made due to confusion over the interpretations of qualified, approved, and approval, as applied to when a Scout could begin work on a merit badge. With the new statement, the unit leaders signature indicates that he or she and the Scout have talked about the Scouts desire to work on the merit badge and that a merit badge counselor has been recommended. The intent of the modification is to give the unit leader the chance to offer counseling as to whether or not the merit badge is a good choice for the Scout, based on his abilities and any prerequisites. The terms qualified or approved were never meant to indicate that the Scout needed to pass some sort of prequalifying test before pursuing a merit badge, or that the unit leader had pass/fail authority to allowor to not allowthe Scout to undertake work on a badge.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

What system that bypasses the SM? Am I missing something here? The change in the blue card still requires the SM approval if I read it correctly.

This change is so minor as to be almost negligible. All it does, from my point of view, is try to assure that the leader does his job as it was intended. The whole point of having him do this is to allow him to counsel the scout and ascertain his readiness. Logically, even with the old wording, that was the intent. Unfortunately, too many SM's either do not understand their job, or are unwilling to do it. There could be a time when a scout is not quite ready, and he should be helped to see that. Just because an 11 year old scout loves horses, he is not yet likely to be ready for Horsemanship, especially if he is one of the really small boys right out of Webloes. A boy with no swimming qualification is not "allowed" to take boating badges until he is certified a swimmer. Some scouts, possibly most, have not actually read the requirements, or simply skimmed them without understanding. I simply continue to have a hard time understanding the noise made by a few every time something is changed, even if it is only clarification or simplification. No scout is being done a favor by the leaders not trying to help them do advancement properly and completely, rather than letting them slide through because they might have their feelings hurt. We seem to have way too many people in the program that do not grasp the main intent from the beginning, helping a boy grow into a productive man and citizen. That job entails more than feel good patting on the head. But it also requires flexibility within the limits of the program, and making common sense decisions without constantly worrying about not crossing all the t's, or dotting all the i's. Maybe this slight change would not have been suggested if the original statement had been understood as it was intended if you read beneath the surface.

Eamonn, I think your comment is probably fairly representative of the majority of the populace in reality. While many may or may not agree with the constant PC stuff in the media, overall, they are supportive in a quiet manner. As has been noted numerous times, the silent majority voice is seldom actually heard.

Jim Rogers on UNDERCOVER BOSS program last night mentioned his Scouting background a number of times and how he feels its basic precepts have been instrumental in his success. Was interesting to see his floundering in some of the jobs, and nice to hear positive comments about Scouting without PC remarks.

I am continually amazed at the strange comments on these boards at times. Service, including sometimes potty patrol, is a part of scouting; and serving at the inauguration is particularly special. If you can brag that you helped with an inauguration you will be proud of yourself. It does not matter too much the job, although much of it is less than glamorous.

Here you go; appears to be a conservative organization with ties, or direct connections with the Koch family. Certainly the main supposed idea behind them is to strengthen, though education and study the understanding of the basic documents of our country's origin. That is something that is obviously important. Now, whether their offerings to educators and students are possibly overly conservative might be of concern to some; but it also may be of help in allowing more balance to some. But, if a scout gets some funding, what is the harm; whether you re comfortable with their personal politics or not? Do not let paranoia drive you away from possibly simply another educational aid. http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/ProjectsaBRI.asp

Agree; a big let down.

According to "Bryan on Scouting", there will be a segment from Texas tonight on some of a guy's collection of memorabilia. Might be fun.

There is, or was, one on one of the spoof sites. Do not know where or when; if googled and not there, then has gone away most likely.

Almost nothing will ever have one hundred percent agreement; even the most obvious subjects will be debated by "someone" using skewed and twisted logic (at least to them). We teach second graders how to try and discern "opinion" from "fact"; yet very often that skill seems to be lacking in these discussions. Our existence is mostly some shade of grey. We can deny all we want, but we all have some type of "prejudice"; it just depends on how you perceive something and how you were raised. How we respond to that prejudice is the real problem, not having it. Very few of us can claim, in reality, that emotion does not sometimes shade our thought process (or lack of it occasionally), and therefore our response. Just because we disagree about things does not make those with whom we disagree "stupid, ignorant, dumb, perverted, and so on. It is simply a disagreement! "Compromise" is not one sided; and it is useless without allowing it to happen at some point. Statistics are dependent on "opinion"; they do not make opinion. Experts can make anything seem to be supported in one direction or another. The actual "study" subject, the questions, the people queried, how they were queried (and even where and when), individual bias, the size of the study, and many other variable all are part of the outcome. If you reach far enough you are likely to find some type of connection between two ideas or persons. Whether you believe absolutely in creation or in evolution, at some point we all share ancestors in one form or another. I am sure others can add many additional things to this list. My point is that all too often we cannot seem to get past our first "knee jerk" to some ideas or conceptions. But, at some point, we need to accept that we can argue to the depth of eternity, but we will not convince everyone we are right, accept we may be wrong. At some point, usually within the first two or three pages of comments here, we have reached a dead-end; the place where neither argument will realistically change the other side of the debate.

Just in case anyone is interested: February 8th and 9th Oxnard Elks' Lodge #1443 801 South A Street Oxnard, Ca. 93030 Contacts: Greg Metzgus coppersmith@sprintmail.com Bill Sternberg bigjockewing@yahoo.com Friday night check in 5PM; Fish dinner available at lodge; setup and seller interaction. Saturday: Silent auctions starting at 9:30AM approx; number depends on donations; Break for lunch (lodge usually has hotdogs and burgers available with fries and soda) Final live auction of "better (?)" items. About 12:30.

These links were posted on scouts-L and are very interesting. A bit cumbersome, but some of the comments are very telling. If National actually pays attention and responds it could be very helpful program wide. Here are two links regarding this: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/mission/pdf/VOS2012SpringCycleFullReport_Spring2012.pdf http://www.scouting.org/filestore/mission/pdf/VoSExecutiveSummary_Spring12.pdf

I had similar issues, and had to have one come to my place and use my computer so I could watch what he was doing and sort it out. Not sure why he had trouble, as it only took a short time on my machine; but it may have been his using the wrong browser. I have had issues with Java and IE; it does not keep its update. So, since Chrome works for the training, but not the recharter, I used it. The other one was an email change that no one seemed able to reattach to his number, so it would not let him do anything. He finally did a completely non attached training and printed the cert, which I attached to the charter. We had one more glitch because of the delay, and had to get permission to sign the paperwork, with a contact number, for the minister, who had gone out of town after Christmas. I now have to go and get it to back up the "signed for", and also get the agreement signed, as the DE did not do it this year as he has done the past two. My main concern was that the past two years I had one hold out who they still took payment for and left on the charter, even though he never completed it. It is simply on the bottom as incomplete. This year I dropped him directly, as I still could not get him to finish it (he is busy and hates computers too). But, with all the YP and related things in the news, one would think that non-completed names would drop automatically after say 90 days, and a refund of paid fees be made, so something to that effect.

While I personally believe these modern versions of movies and games very likely have some effect on a few people, the fascination with violence and so on is not new. Think about the gatherings of people in the ancient periods to watch gladiators and people fighting for their lives against lions. We have evidence of similar lure to violence in the mobs that gathered to watch hangings, or the people that are observers, but do nothing to stop violence on the streets. Of course there is the so called gentleman's sport of boxing, and the worse ultimate fighter interchanges. Add into that the inhumane things such as dog and cock fighting, bull fighting, and so on. Does the more graphic abilities in the movies and games today add to the possible corruption of weak minds? Possibly. But, the fact that for whatever reason, many of us are drawn to these things, at least passively, is a fact. I would like to hope I would never become a serial killer, yet I have still found Dexter, The Sopranos, and the ilk to be somehow fascinating. Maybe the trick is being able to notice when someone appears to be stepping over that psychological line to perhaps become a threat.

Here is the second part of the sheet of paper I found. Dear Fellow Citizen: I have the pleasure of being a member of a committee to raise fifty billion dollars to be used for placing a statue of Truman in the "Hall of Fame" in Washington D. C. We have not decided not to tease it by placing it next to Washington - who never told a lie, nor next to Lincoln, who was known as Honest Abe. It should not, either, be put next to Thomas Jefferson who served a third term. The committee was in quite a quibble. But after much and careful deliberation we decided to put it next to Columbus who didn't know where he was going; did not know where he was when he got there; didn't know where he had been when he returned; and did it all on borrowed money. The manuscript to be put on the Statue will read; "I pledge allegiance to Harry S. Truman, and to the independence for which he stands, one man indispensable, with corruption for all". Five thousand years ago Moses said, "Pick up thy shovel, mount the ass and camel, and I will take you to the Promised Land". Five thousand years later Truman said, "Lay down thy shovel, sit on your ass, light up a Camel, because this is the Promised Land. If you are one of those who have any money left after taxes have been paid, we will expect a liberal contribution from you immediately. Yours truly,

My grandfather was a life long republican and pretty straight laced; so this piece I found in his old papers was interesting, as well as amusing. Dear Mr. Anthony: I am a sailor in the United States Navy, and I also have a cousin who is a Democrat. My father has epilepsy and my mother has syphilis, so neither of them works. They are totally dependent on my two sisters, who are prostitutes in Louisville, because my only brother is serving a life term in prison for rape and murder. I am in love with a streetwalker who operates near our base. She knows nothing of my family background but says that she loves me. We intend to get married as soon as she settles her bigamy case, which is now in court. When I get out of the Navy we intend to move to Detroit and open a small house. My problem, Mr. Anthony, is this: In view of the fact that I intend to make this girl my wife and bring her into my family, should I, or should I not, tell her about my cousin who is a Democrat? G. Whizz

Pack; read the first entry, and it will all clear up, hopefully.