skeptic

Not sure where you get your details on the camps Merlyn; but Balboa swimming pool is open period at certain times, just like all public access pools. Balboa only books part of the property during "part" of the summer for scouting activities. The pool, many of the meeting areas, and even some of the trails are open even when cubs are using the actual camp sites. Fiesta Island has a Scout specific camp during most of the summer; but since they were asked to build it by the other using groups, they also get first summer usage. Remember, they maintain it and furnish all the facility equipment and safety personnel. Other than summer, it is simply open to first come, first served. The fact that scout groups may actually plan further ahead may make them more often the user, especially during key dates. Now, you are "whining", because the scouts actually utilize the facilities they built and maintain. Again, the Randall twins were allowed to continue, once it was established they were not yet sure about their beliefs, but rather following the father's lead. Once they were old enough to make their choice, they lost. But, the reality is, and was, dad was simply looking for notoriety.

Okay Merlyn: Let's start with the really early one, the Randall's, twin cubs in Orange County back in the 90's. The father, a lawyer, sued the BSA because they were atheists. Interesting that one of the of them was quoted attributing nature to "Mother Nature", when asked how he accounted for it. Hmmmmm; dad did not get to monitor his thought process that time. They lost by the way, eventually, though the father pushed it until they were turned down for Eagle. How about the ongoing San Diego camp suits? Those "adults" claim their kids are not able to use the camps because they are administered by BSA. But the general public is allowed to use them, even if not members. I am sure with a bit of additional digging, more of these examples can be found. Not directly related to scouts, but connected, is the lawyer father that sued the school district on behalf of his daughter because of "under God" in the POA. That was thrown out, but certainly she was his pawn, especially since the mother had no problem, nor did she ask him to do it. Your response should should be interesting, as these are "easily" documented.

While there might be a few unfortunate units whose adult leadership overreacts to a kid still searching his way in life, almost always, the real issue is the result of parents and other adults thinking using the kids as pawns for their own agenda is okay. Certainly, most leaders would not "kick a kid out" for legitimate personal searching, especially those that are younger. The average kid will not "personally" be bringing these issues up until after 14 or 15. At that point, it may need to become a point of discussion with unit leaders. But, if the choice is made at that point, then it is part of life to understand that we cannot expect others to simply accept our opinions and change. That is not telling them their opinion is wrong, it is simply helping them live in the real world where choices have consequences. If the parent, who should understand at joining the BSA requirements, makes it an issue, then they are the ones in error, because their children have become pawns in their own personal agendas. I would prefer National make a major redirection regarding the Gay issue, putting it back into the unit as a decision, unless it is pushed by the PC groups into the public. And I actually feel that change will occur sooner than later. The atheist/agnostic issue is not something I see as a problem, as God or similar spiritual incarnations are part and parcel of Scouting, worldwide. Take it out, and you no longer have the same program. Parents need to understand that is the case and simply find other outlets for their kids, or allow the kids to participate while they do their own personal search. Those that attack the kids, as Sentinel says, are completely out of line; and I will tell them so should they do it in front of me. Freedom of "choice" is pretty clear; but it is "your" choice, not mine. And you do not have the right to force it on me or others when you have the option of simply "not choosing to participate". Sorry if that is too simplistic for our more erudite practitioners of political philosophy.

You have just answered a question for me. I have one scout with that issue; I just noticed that it is not showing on his advancement report anymore. Yes, this is simply really a poor response, and also confusing. If leadership changes, or records on the unit or council levels are inadequate, it can really be a problem come time for Eagle record verification with the minimal merit badges, especially if a scout earned more than one. If someone from National actually monitors this, you should move on this to fix it the "right way.

Much of what the scout does reflects from the family interactions. Over the years I have had a fairly substantial number of scouts that always have a book, or sometimes more than one, with them on outings and at summer camp. On occasion, they have had to be asked to please put it away while we did an activity; and it is rather nice to see a boy leaning on a tree in the woods reading. What has often been the case in that regard in the families is that TV was either not allowed (in a few cases) or drastically monitored; same with computer related things as the age has developed. Most did not have phones until high school, and they were very limited plans, meant for real needed use only. While they all relished visiting other kids without those limitations (the overheard grapevine), they mostly were more polite, better at things in general because they actually read instructions and the book maybe, and did well in school. Many also were involved in sports, though they tended towards the more singular type such as track or wrestling. Give a group of scouts, or just kids, the resources and minimal knowledge within the group, then put them on their own to interact. Someone will soon take charge and they will have fun, mostly without much advanced gear. But, it will only happen if there is no other option in many cases. I do now have a bit of a problem with the video games and so on becoming a distraction, even when they are not actually there. A few scouts cannot talk about anything else it seems, if not given a specific challenge or goal. They will generally not argue about going back to the task at hand, though they need to be monitored closely, which is the PL and SPL biggest challenges now. I am surprised at times that so many kids, who can play computer type games non stop, do not seem to have much grasp of the more useful computer skills in many cases. The joke that you need to call the kid to fix the computer is not so accurate anymore. It will always be a challenge to face the image problems of various activities, and the PC stuff related to Scouting currently is not helpful. But, most of the kids know little about it until they are older teens, and they seem to understand that it is not a real part of the unit interaction for the most part. If it was easy, then it might be considered less beneficial too. Do "your best"; that is all that can really be asked.

Basement; I do not live where you do, nor know your kids, but the idea you do not see any athletes or such is nonsense. We have had many scouts in those positions in our area over the years. One year, one of my Eagles graduated 4th in his class and got a full academic scholarship to NAU. But he also was student body president and captain of the water polo team. Have had other similar situations with scouts in other units throughout our council. Then of course you can find numerous Eagle Scouts who are successful athletes in colleges, and even a few making it in the pro's. We simply need to find a way to not hide these success stories, as they are not as unusual as we tend to think.

Interesting Packsaddle; what response would there be if there was some connection to Scouting or the Catholic Church?

Well, the ignore list does not work anyway, as is obvious with this. Noted that two others I put there are also regularly appearing to me; so guess it has a problem. My issue here is that the comments are vicious and dripping with very non scouting attitude. Some of his comments, if you can get past the vitriol, are reality; I have not denied that. But, even if something positive or possibly a move in the right direction occurs, he is negative. So, it is the "black cloud" attitude and extreme comments that I find make his contributions less than believable. But, as noted, apparently, I still will have to see them and decide if I want to read and be rained on with negativity while looking for an element of fact or usefulness. And I hope this attitude IS only visible here, rather than in any direct relations with scouts and scouters, as they certainly would not encourage much on the unit level. Just my own opinion, and I can assure you that I do not wear blinders.

Unfortunately, what is in play with BadenP has little to do with most issues in reality. It is rather his very large personal problem with any element of the professional BSA organization. It is really just sad to me that he feels such animosity towards them. But the extreme comments and constant negativity is beyond the pale, and reflects more poorly on him than on the targets of his venom. Again, as I have said before, I just hope this attitude is not displayed in front of the kids and scouting families. He is now being placed on my blocked list, as I simply do not feel he will change; and the occasional good comment or observation is negated by the log on his shoulder.

Nothing is absolutely black or white; but some are more one than the other. Some issues tend to shade more one direction than the other; but often it is the definition or interpretation that matters. A big difference between a pat on the butt, or in the face attention getting and physically harmful hitting or shaking someone in anger. Few of us were beat as kids; but many of us had our attention focused by a swat on the butt or a stern lecture with hands on shoulders and face to face. This particular issue shades strongly towards non-physical interactions; but there are times when it may simply not work. Just opinion, as always.

It is your district event, and you can do what you want in regard to recognition's. Whatever it takes to get participation should be considered. Nothing wrong with a few special awards or certificates, especially if people have sort of been left hanging for a couple of years. The council cannot dictate to you what you do; they are not paying or running it.

Beavah; Like most of your requirements, but would be a bit more realistic in the number of camping days, but no fewer than 15 certainly. Also would replace the 50 miler with a week as a provisional or actual leader at summer camp with an average size troop; or spend a week on staff in an actual hands on, face to face with scouts daily, camp position for either Cub camp (two sessions) or Boy Scouts. The camp would have to be different every year, and in a different region. Also would serve a "hands on" position at a Camporee or similar event each year, actually camping and running an event with scouts participating for at least half a day; or spend it with the unit leadership in which he participates. But it would not just be the CSE; it would be all the National executives. Maybe National Council could actually sponsor directly units of each type, supporting them as a normal unit would, not with the National budget directly. And the membership would have to be along a mix similar to Brownsea. Not smoking anything; just dreaming a bit along with the rest of you.

Perhaps the idea that not everything is a conspiracy, and that some information should not necessarily be publicly released in regard to National security should be made known to Fox and a few of our noble legislators. Nahhhh!

The great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority. - James Madison Today, in many of these controversies, it is the opposite. But the PC crowd tends to have the vocal media and self important public figures on their podium. Just an observation.(This message has been edited by skeptic) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2012-04-25/news/31402658_1_eagle-scout-lasalle-council-algonquian-district

While the subject of the meeting requested is important and should not be tolerated, the annual renewal specifically relates to the Institutional Head, not the COR. Certainly the charter renewal meeting might very well include discussion of the other issue; but the main point is that it is the IH that is the signatory on the Charter Agreement, along with the District Executive (not commissioner). The COR should absolutely go to the council chief executive, and if necessary higher in regard to the other issue, given it is not something petty and without real merit.

Changing within the unique unit should be nothing more than putting the change into the records on Scoutnet, something possible from the unit person in charge. My understanding is that you can actually do this at recharter, simply changing their position codes on the data sheets. But, they do not have a way to do it in a similar manner during the non registration periods. I could be misunderstanding of course; but it seems I did this myself a year ago for one of my adults. Had to wait for recharter time to do it without a new application. Also just discovered we apparently cannot be registered in two councils unless we pay in each one. I have a long time troop member who stayed on our charter while being registered in the district. She has move to Texas, and I was told last night that she can only stay on the charter here if we file a new app and pay here; so no dual positions if not in the same council apparently. Now that may not be accurate of course, but do not know where to look.

There is a related problem with Eagle identifications. Having reviewed records in depth, due to research on our troop history, I discovered that there is a number assigned to the Eagle, apparently on completion at National. Then, if the Eagle becomes a member of NESA, they too assign a number. So, council Eagle records very often show the same person under two different numbers, and on rare occasions even more if reregistration to NESA was done using a variant on the name, or inconsistent Eagle or council data. I personally am shown twice due to this problem. In regard to that, there is also a disconnect in NESA for Eagles earned in councils no longer in existence. It took me forever to get mine accurate, as it insisted my Eagle was in the council in which I now live, even though the unit never existed here. In very early records, there appears to be a strong likelihood of "lost" records in the case of scouts registered by National due to no local council at the times. I have tried a number of times to get access to early paper records on Eagles to see if there may be a few from our county, since we had hundreds of scouts dating from 1910 to 1921 when the council began. The data sent to the council has none prior to the inception of the council, which seems unlikely due to the records beginning in 1921 and the number of very early Eagles then. I have hit a brick wall though in trying to get access, even when I was in Dallas and willing to simply review things personally. Oh well; maybe someday it will all get fixed.

And of course our most astute and accurate news site is on it. I periodically sign in there to see what their latest is, and caught Hannity making a big deal about this. Of course they are also baying about the generals, suggesting 100% districts in Philly are likely fraud, and demanding special prosecutor for Libya, while suggesting once again impeachment. It has been a whole week since the election. They never seem to see how ridiculous they sound half the time. And, if they actually have someone try and voice something reasonable, they almost never are allowed to finish a statement.

I would probably put something like "tu" or "tew" or something denoting the spelling sounds, and it would use quotation marks of other set off indicators. Same could be done with other words.

It has been less than a week since the election, and already we have stuff all over the net and even in local papers' letters about how awful the results are and how the country is going to implode because of it. Then we have idiot business owners and so on spouting off how they are now going to lay people off because the ACA is so unfair and will kill their profits; or they are going to make all employees part time. Of course, many of these same people would never reduce their own incomes, even though most are drawing far more than most regular employed people make. Somehow they feel their own inflated needs (???) take precedence over being fair to their employees. While a few may actually have legitimate concerns, most of the ones making this noise are simply using it as an excuse to reduce costs at the expense of others and blame the government, especially the president. This in turn leads back to the sheep baaing even more loudly how the world is coming to an end or something to that effect. The most disturbing comments though are the ones that are openly, and blatantly either threatening in some manner, or simply purposely demean the President and anyone who may have voted for him. I am one of those; and I can assure you that I have worked hard most of my life, and I have never expected anyone but myself to be responsible for my well being. I did draw unemployment when I was downsized from my job; but it was never extended, and it was partially reduced when I found part time work. Went without any health insurance due to the same RIF after the cost quickly became far too much. I am fortunate that if I was able to get on VA at the minimum level due to my active duty during the Vietnam Era; but the local hospital emergency would still have been my only recourse in an emergency, which I did not have happen at least. At least the VA "was" there for me, as was the short term unemployment. So, I guess I am another one of the parasites, since I used those buffers when I needed to after serving in the military and working almost forty years consistently. I have friends with whom I choose not to discuss these things because they are so completely paranoid about it all. Some have had some tough times the past few years and have struggled to work multiple jobs. Yet they still found money for a lot of electronic stuff, multiple vehicles, and occasional trips to amusement parks or other high priced entertainment; and many overextended themselves with little forethought about what they actually could afford and still have a cushion should they need it. A few also are regular drinkers and/or smokers. But it is the government's fault they are over their heads. I like them as casual friends or acquaintances; but I have trouble feeling overly sorry for their self inflicted issues. Many of them, of course, have taken advantage of various government aids when they could; yet they still complain about those awful freeloaders. Lots of room for improvement and correction of the ACA; and I would think that would be a major challenge undertaken the next few years. Mr. Obama has already acknowledged the Act needs these things, and he is willing to work to iron it out. Much of the hand ringing is built on long term expenses that may or may not happen, depending on a lot of factors. Tweaking the Act, or even removing certain parts is what needs to be done; not wail about how it will ruin the country and bankrupt everybody. There is opportunity to fix the tax code; find ways to reduce debt without pulling the carpet out from under those that truly need support, even as we rework the benefits to reduce their abuse; and encourage logical immigration reform while actually upholding current law fairly and without prejudice; and fix our election system to eliminate the outlandish costs and negativity, as well as the actual voting registration and process. All of these things necessitate a government that actually governs and does its job, and is not centered on its own needs, but those of the people who elect them. Well, I now withdraw from the soap box. I understand that I am "jousting at windmills". But, sometimes you simply have to vent.

California has a lot of issues, as most know. But, one good thing that has come out of our propositions is term limits and a relatively unbiased district boundary process. Also, as someone pointed out, the two highest vote recipients in spring primaries run, even if from the same party. Also, the governor and lieutenant governor are elected separately which allows opposite parties at times. In regard to choosing the president, I would like to either see popular vote be the only factor, or if the electoral college is to stay in place, then ALL states would have their votes earned by popular vote percentage, rather than all or nothing. It would make a huge difference in the final result.

OGE; I feel a bit sheepish in that I should have noted that these observations are not limited to these forums. It is even worse on Facebook, especially with the use of text talk in many of the postings. It is heck being old and a frustrated poet.

For over a year now I have been noting the carelessness of mis-typing or simply, heaven forbid, not understanding the difference between "lose" and "loose". So, today I lost it and decided to "loose" my frustration here. "loose lips sink ships"; not "lose" lips sink ships, though I guess if your lips were "loose" you might "lose" a ship or two. The football game was lost because of a "loose" defense; if we knew how to tackle, maybe we would not "lose" so many games. If you "lose" your temper, then you "loose" bad vibes on those around you. Hopefully "loose" comments will not "lose" you respect. So, now that I have "loosed" my frustration about this here, I might finally "lose" the pain that tweaks me every time I see the misuse or simply lack of discipline in proofing typing. Then we will need to talk about "there", "their", and "they're"; the difference between "take" and "bring"; "to" and "too", hopefully never "two"; and the fact there is not such word as "irregardless". One can hope can't they?(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Thanks; on target.