BklynEagle

Scout Spirit or no, they should shoot the idiot who came up with these. Hope your Troops and Packs have a supply of old ones.

You have a pretty good point there, scoutingagain. Jim Webb (D-Va) is supposedly backpedaling on Obamacare due to (legitimate) concerns about its popularity in Virginia (I've got family in Virginia, according to them there's some fierce opposition to the whole thing). He used to be in Reagan's cabinet, could switch back if the going got tough. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the appointee Senator of the Accidental Governor, is facing the possibility of some serious opposition should Harold Ford (former D-Tenn) mount a primary challenge. Though Ford has "re-evaluated" several of his old positions (i.e.: sold-out), he's still more conservative than Gilly. And let's face it, as inept as they are, you can never count out the NY Republican Party. The trick for them is to secure the backing of the NY Conservative Party (Yes, I know, it's shocking - NY has an actual "Conservative Party"), as no state-wide GOP candidate has won in NY without the backing of the Conservatives. It is indeed an interesting commentary on our state of affairs when George "Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever" Wallace is right on the money with his observations on the business of Washington, D.C. (Thank you frankj for your quote) I, for one, have always considered Will Rogers to be especially prescient with his thoughts on our political system, such as this gem: "Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?" (Edited for Grammar)(This message has been edited by BklynEagle)

Cold Weather all the way. No bugs, no humidity, no roasting to death with no relief in sight. A chill in the air to remind you that you're alive, and a warm fire to sit around and shoot the... uh... well, you know what it is that gets shot in these instances. And on a personal note, I hope that whatever was ailing you has been resolved, Scoutfish.

BadenP I would hardly consider Wikipedia to be a credible source for an academic discussion. Frankly, with the exception of their articles on the episodes of the varied "Star Trek" shows, I don't hold much stock in the analytical capabilities of most Wikipedia contributers, as anybody with a keyboard and an Internet connection can edit the thing. Regardless, NJCubScouter has already exposed the flaw in that reference. As far as your conviction about Benedict restoring the Latin Mass, I frankly don't know where you get your information; I have heard nothing of the sort. In any event, it would be difficult to implement, as so many priests no longer know Latin; Here in Brooklyn, the local Seminary (which is actually out in Long Island) stopped with the Latin lessons right after Vatican II. As such, you have a Diocese with roughly 40 years worth of priests who wouldn't know what to do if what you say is true. (And don't kid yourself, the old priests largely forgot their Latin 40 years ago too) Look, it's obvious that nothing you or I say to one another is going to change each other's mind; You're an obviously intelligent justifiably angry ex-Catholic, I'm a fairly bright theological stick-in-the-mud active Catholic. On this issue, we're obviously not going to agree. I propose, then, that among ourselves we come up with a bit of ecumenical good-will and let this matter drop. Let us instead turn to the topic which unites us all: Scouting. Yours in the aformentioned, BklynEagle

BadenP Not being an average layman in the pew, I have a better understanding of Diocesean politics than you might imagine. In addition, I'm very sorry that you have had negative personal experiences with the more recent scandals which have rocked the Church; I have had some second- and third-hand experiences with that tragedy myself. You might be surprised in that I too would prefer to see more accountability within the Church, but I do think that it must be a two-way street: let us hang the offenders and their abettors by their toe-nails, but let us not sit quietly when we realize that someone has been smeared falsely. (Partial disclosure - I've known guilty and I've known innocent) I don't suggest that the Church or its history is perfect (just ask Galileo), but it is hardly one bad thing after another, and it has produced good things too (Catholic Charities, varied hospitals and colleges, Boys' Town, etc.). I am pleased to know that you continue to be a person of faith, and sincerely hope that you continue to grow in and be nourished by that faith. As far as Benedict and the Jews go, I believe that the quote which you reference, "the Jewish people were responsible for putting Jesus to death", was related to something that was going into a Misal for the Tridentine Rite, not the Revised Roman Misal that is used by most parishes today. I may be in error on that, but I do try and keep tabs on such things. In any event, I believe that your source may be in error, as it is my understanding that the reference is actually made with regards to the Jewish people of that time in Jerusalem (let's face it, it wasn't a mob of angry Buddhists that were screaming at Pilate), rather than the faith group as a whole, as a declaration such as you suggest would run counter to a variety of promulgations made both by this Pope and his predecessor, which have, among other things, in no uncertain terms classified anti-Semitism as a sin. Again, I could be off on this new Misal, but given where I am and what I do, I try to keep tabs on such things. As a side note, I hope you'll join me in wishing ND the best of luck in the next football season. Again, a Happy New Year. BklynEagle

BadenP - I would have gotten back to you sooner, but was thwarted by technical difficulties. Please don't take my delay as some sort of concession of defeat. Now, on to my reply. Contrary to your commentary, I'm not a bigot, nor some whackjob; as a matter of fact, I am on record on this site as being in opposition to a particular wahoo who was claiming that the OA was a secret Masonic path to the devil. I am certainly pleased to know that YOU are apparently an expert on MY religion. I am, however, curious as to your views on Benedict being against interreligious dialogue; last time I checked, he invited Muslim scholars to dialogue, has a fairly cordial relationship with varied Jewish leaders, has continued dialogue with the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox Churches, as well has having had a reasonable working relationship with the Lutheran Churches. Avignon, which YOU apparently have not studied, was the result of the French king marching on Rome in 1303 and imposing his will upon the College of Cardinals, leading to the election of Clement V, who first established a Papal presence in what you have termed a "refuge of peace". The only time Italians threatened the College during that period was when the College met following the death of Clement XI in 1378, at which point the LAY ROMAN CITIZENRY, not murderous Italian cardinals, rioted outside the Sistine Chapel. I reference Vatican II as a FUBAR largely due to the confusion and division within the Church that came about due to the "spirit of Vatican II", such as, say, Liberation Theology. As far as the rest of my "dribble", I only sought to point out that, at least in NYC, the public high school system would not be a safe alternative as a chartering organization due to clusters of violence within said system. My commentary was strictly relating to NYC; I don't know where you're from BadenP, but I hope that the system is better wherever that is. If you do happen to be from NYC, I'd like to cite Lafayette and Washington Irving as examples of the sort of high schools I am referencing. You are obviously a passionate fellow, BadenP, and I hope that you approach Scouting and the personal growth of your Scouts with the same gusto that you obviously approach other topics. You obviously have something against religion in general ("I would love to see the new BSA without the religious strangle hold" - 12/26/2009: 6:15:59 PM), and the Catholic Church in particular (Your commentaries from 12/26/2009: 1:19:42 PM, 12/26/2009: 10:50:16 PM). I don't know what we did to tick you off, but I do think that it's unfortunate. I wish you and yours (and anyone else who happens to read this) a Happy New Year and Happy Camping. Yours in Scouting, BklynEagle

Two Points BadenP - you ought to get that apperently raving bigoty of yours under control. "Elitist and prejudicial pre Vatican 2 status"? Ignoring the fact that Vatican II was the biggest FUBAR to hit the Roman Church since Avignon, BSA would only be a shell of itself if RC, LDS, and other Churches who actually have the audacity to insist on morality pulled their sponsorships, so frankly, from a pure business perspective, it would be suicide to do as you seem to wish. Who's gonna sponsor a Troop if not not a Church? The local Public School? I don't know if it's different in other places, but my analysis of the NYC PS system leads me to the conclusion that a significant portion of it could be blamed for society's woes. The theoretical Troop would probably have to share space with the Junior Chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society, all the while having to somehow secure their equipment from the warring Bloods, Crips, and Latin Kings. The Churches, regardless of your opinion of their politics, at least provide reasonably secured facilities. Eammon - I have to disagree with you about the Anglican taking the bull by the horns on the gay issue. Episcopal Church USA has certainly been wrestling the issue, but that effort has severely fractured them, not to mention the outrage it has caused in the Anglican Communion. The Enlish Church may not object too strenuously, but the Africans are practically having kittens, save a few particular leaders. Having said that, I have to agree with something you said before that; kids should not be having sex, regardless of personal inclination.

This is not a Troop Policy, just my personal thought process - Assuming you go camping fairly often (say, 7 or 8 times a year), a simple majority's worth of attendance on Camping Trips, i.e., 50% + 1 would probably be acceptable (Let's face it, High School kids get Weekend Jobs, which is another element in their personal growth); if you go camping less often, then the attendance factor would have to be larger. Meetings I'd be a bit more strict about, say, 80% cumulative attendance, assuming absences are infrequent. Exceptions, of course, could exist to these rules, but that would have to be looked at on a case by case basis (Divorced parents with joint custody, medical conditions, etc.) I don't pretend that the above is ideal, but we must do better than Active=Registered.(This message has been edited by BklynEagle)

Friend of mine bought me the Klingon Interpreter Strip as a joke, but I fear I am not nearly fluent enough to wear it. (taH pagh, taH be) Brooklynese, on the other hand......

Though I feel sorry for you, Balding, at least CNJC had the decency to inform all of you that they're looking to close KMSR, unlike GNYC, which only put out a press release (and nothing more) regarding its hope to sell Camp Pouch (See: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=260032 - GNYC Seeks to Sell Camp Pouch). Additionally, I must applaud CNJC for offering Scouters the opportunity to make their opinions known on the matter, again, unlike GNYC. I guess it just goes to show that Manhattanites really are the scourge of all that is good and right.

JerseyScout and scoutingagain: You're absolutely right; Pouch also serves the purpose of providing a convenient base for any out-of-town Troop that's visiting New York. I can only hope that you, and others who feel like you do, make use of the petition found on the SavePouch site, and express those opinions. Additionally, I find scoutingagain's suggestion of NPS taking it over to be an interesting one; the Parkies already have the rather large Gateway system spread throughout the greater NY area. I wonder, though, if the Honorary President of the BSA would sign off on it? skeptic has a good idea too, about National taking it and developing it into an East Coast Urban Center, with marketing possibilities for out-of-town and international Troops. It makes a great deal of sense, given that NYC is a fairly big tourist destination, so being able to offer a Scouting-convenient opportunity could, in theory, be a big draw. Unfortunately, Irving and GNYC have spent the past several years in a Propulsion of Liquious Human Waste Contest, so I don't know if they'd be willing to arrange it.

In the past two weeks, it came out that the Greater New York Councils (GNYC) has decided to try and sell off Camp Pouch, located in the New York City borough of Staten Island. The Council Executive Board voted in favor of the measure 11/24, and it made the local Staten Island papers 11/25. The catch: no other borough found out until 11/29 (at the earliest). Pouch, being the only BSA camp located within NYC, serves as a highly valuable opportunity for our urban Troops to be able to experience the great outdoors without completely breaking the bank. Though Council expresses that they would prefer to sell to the State or the City, so that the land is preserved as part of the governmentally-run woodland "The Greenbelt", this is deemed unlikely, as the State borders on bankruptcy and the City is drastically cutting its budget (NYS, you see, goes marauding through NYC's treasury whenever the State starts slipping into the red). As such, this means that the likely potential buyer of the camp land would be a private developer, which GNYC has quietly admitted is a possibility. As there are often two sides to every story, I'm going to do my best to be fair. Here's GNYC's press release: http://www.bsa-gnyc.org/openrosters/DocDownload.asp?orgkey=1161&id=68828 Here's the popular opposition: http://savepouch.com/index.html A lot of us outside of the Council offices object to this on several grounds: 1) Pouch is the only BSA camp in NYC. This enables countless numbers of Troops to go camping while staying within their transportation means (Many NYers don't have cars, or at the very least big cars) 2) Council could save a lot of money by moving out of the Empire State Building, with its reputed rent of $1.4 million per floor (GNYC operates two floors) 3) Staten Island residents object to the overdevelopment of their borough 4) And last, but certainly not least, just about everybody objects to the cloak-and-dagger nature of the whole deal; Late night meetings to vote on the issue, minimal public information, etc. Anyway, that's the state of Scouting in NYC.

Got to agree with moxieman, it's the holiday. I didn't even bother going online from the day before Thanksgiving until about this past Sunday night. And much like SequoiaWDL and DancesWithSpreadsheets, I couldn't access the site for love or money on Tuesday. But fear not - there's always problems somewhere in the world of Scouting.

Obviously this Salza fellow is a whackjob, like those types that get bent out of shape over the jolly old elf from the North Pole, on account of "Santa" being an anagram of "Satan". (Cue the forboding music and the cameo of Vincent Price) As a Catholic, and a rather conservative on at that, I have no problem with the OA, and neither does my priest. Like many others who have posted here, I can think of more than a few OA-affiliated members of the local Catholic Committee on Scouting. It seems that Salza feels that (A) the lack of obvious recognition for the Christian God and (B) the similarities between the OA and Freemasonry are enough to make the OA a no-go. Salza probably dislikes George Washington for similar reasons. I think that it is highly unfortunate that Mr. Salza has elected to make mountains out of mole-hills, and state without equivocation that he has done no favors for his Church. As a side note, in response to BadenP's comment on the rocky relationship between the BSA and the RC Church, I would say that the larger issue was the fortress mentality taken up by American Catholics as a result of persistant and violent persecution. My ancestors may have (unfortunately and inaccurately) thought that all Prots were jerks, but that was because "No Irish Need Apply" signs multiplied faster than rabbits, and some Protestants enjoyed teaching their kids how to build a fire while they were next to the wooden walls of the local Catholic church. Oh, and shortridge, another comment like yours of 10/15, and I'll have to recommend you for THE COMFY CHAIR! ( )

Technically speaking, TheScout, you are correct: there is no clause that specifies "Seperation of Church and State". Having said that, there is Aticle VI, Section 3: "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States", as well as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, specifying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Additionally, there is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, though its original intent was with regards to race.

>There is a good reason our Founding Fathers put into the Constitution a clause for the seperation of Church and State. < Yeah, to protect the Church from the State.

Believe me, Eagle92, no offence taken, and not trying to dish it out either. Obviously, your council is highly concerned with its legal protections. I'm sure they have a good reason for this. The fact that the troop you mention made use of a Council-designed CSP, even an old one, is probably the real crux of the issue there. Having said that, they may even have an objection to being mentioned on what effectively amounts to an advertisement without their consent. The varied organizations here in NYC have (by and large; there are exceptions) not made use of any image not created by persons duly authorized by those respective organizations. That's why I contend that most of us should be safe. So far, no one in GNYC has objected, and they've had plenty of opportunities to see these custom patches for themselves (My DE has been surrounded by a sea of our custom patches at numerous Eagle COHs, as well as our Anniversary Dinner a few years back). Naturally, though, councils vary, and what my council tolerates, your council may not. That is, as I sure you'll agree, the nature of wide-spread organizations; there is variety in operation. As far as where Beavah might be, I can be reasonably confident that he isn't up here; our rivers are too polluted for any living animal to dam

Back at Summer Camp a few years ago, the camp was running a form of Campwide Games in which a mascot or totem was required. A few troops brought the mascots/totems back with them in subsequent years.

Eagle92 - >BSA nationally and some local councils, are really getting anal retentive about BSA 'branding" and ARE going after individuals and units. There is a troop in my district that had the lawyers coming after them b/c they designed an all in one patch that had my council's old CSP design in it. Looked great, but it violated the law and they had to quit makign them< Oak Tree - >The answer that I think the lawyers would give is yes, they do need to protect their brand. If they are aware of people using it without authorization and do nothing to stop it, then they can lose legal protection. Hence all manner of organizations sue the little guy. Companies do it all the time, even when they don't really want to. Get your law firm to send out a "Cease and desist" letter. < Contemplating on the above two posts, I think that my troop, as well as most (though not all) of the other troops/packs/lodges/associations/etc. that I mentioned before probably shouldn't have to worry, as a formal BSA image is not incorporated in the customized article. As we (the varied groups) aren't infringing upon National's copyright to its images, they shouldn't harass us about our images, which, as a rule, are original designs made by our respective members or a duly commissioned outside source. Having said that, I agree with Oak Tree's later assertion that "... you need to retain some control. Don't want some random patrol of jokesters producing a wildly inappropriate patch", but frankly, I have to wonder at the quality of Troop Leadership if it is permitting the Scouts to go completely off the deep end with patch design (Yes, I know, "boy run organization", but we, the adults, have a responsibility to insist and enforce a certain amount of decorum. But that's for another thread )

>Brklyn, Welcome to the forums. You may need to be care/get your council's approval for that. BSA nationally and some local councils, are really getting anal retentive about BSA 'branding" and ARE going after individuals and units. There is a troop in my district that had the lawyers coming after them b/c they designed an all in one patch that had my council's old CSP design in it. Looked great, but it violated the law and they had to quit makign them. Came to someone's legal eyes via an ebay sale.< Thanks for your concern, Eagle92. If the Council goes after my guys, they're gonna hafta go after a heckuva lot of other troops, not to mention a few OA Lodges, the Brooklyn Eagle Scout Association, AND themselves. (Customizing seems to be common in GNYC.) If National starts squawking, that, of course, is another matter entirely, but do they really need to go ticking off more people then they already have (Particularly the Eagles and Arrowmen of New York)?

My Troop, and its affiliated Pack, have a real simple solution to the red/white vs. tan/green conflict - We've got custom shoulder patches that identify our council, ourselves, and where we're from.

I've been reading this thread with keen interest, as my Troop has had a few questionable candidates slip through in years past. I find it difficult to believe that the young man in question suddenly woke up one day and was no longer living in a manner consistent with Scout Spirit. If I had to guess, he was probably a cause of consternation from Day One. Now that he's going for Eagle (and with a stated intention of leaving after Eagle), his problematic nature is causing uz2bnowl some real agita. My question is this (and please don't take it the wrong way): Why didn't he cause uz2bnowl agita when he was up for his Life BOR, or his Star BOR, or his First Class BOR, etc? I think that it's admirable that there is recognition of the fact that Eagle is a higher level, one of maturity, ideally the fulfillment of Scout Spirit; but why wasn't Scout Spirit taken into account with the previous ranks? There seems to be an unfortunate tendency to overlook such things when the Scout is not going for Eagle; but, suddenly, as if a switch was flipped, the second he starts hankering for the red, white and blue badge, BOOM, "boys will be boys" goes out the window and they're suddenly taking the Doctorate Orals. THAT IS NOT FAIR. Naturally, we can't be complete nitpicking wackjobs, but we should be holding the boys to a standard from Day One, that way Eagle isn't such a big shock. I've sat on BORs over the years, and I've voted down candidates for ranks other than Eagle, and I've taken heat for it; but the message became clear: You're a Scout, you're seeking a position of leadership and authority, you're going to be held accountable, no matter what rank you're seeking. That's how we cultivate good Eagles.

"Eureka! Simple solution Class A's are boxers and Class B's are briefs.... Both would have fleur-de-lis on the bands. See how simple that is!" Wouldn't that be a violation of Youth Protection? I'd say that epaulets ARE useful, particularly if we keep on dressing Webelos in the Boy Scout uniform rather than the Cub uniform. Overall, I never had a problem with the De La Renta shirt, or even the De La Renta pants (though those were far from ideal) - It was the De La Renta shorts that I hated. The new uniform bugs me - I don't like the design of the shirt, I don't like the pants, and I don't like the color scheme. Frankly, if the BSA really tried, they would be able to find a happy medium between style, quality, and usefulness. There's a company out of the Great Lakes region that has done some terrific stuff with fire hose material that is durable, outdoors-approved, and good looking; But, it doesn't cost $0.05 to make (to then be sold at $20), so Supply will never go for it.

Scoutfish, we think alike - There exist parents who ruin Scouting for their kids. Personally, I wish my Troop would make the parents stick around, and then get involved in some way, shape, or form, but when our Scoutmaster is incapable of making it to a meeting less than 30-45 minutes late, what can I expect?

I'd say one of the biggest problems is that there are a heckuva lot of kids whose parents dump them into the Scouts as a means to get away from them for 1.5 - 2 hrs every week. It's no longer Boy Scouts of America, it's Baby Sitters of America. Then, too, you have what Scoutfish makes note of, the "All about me" mentality. My troop had something like that a few years ago; The boy's mother refused to allow him to go on any camping trips (we go camping about 10 times a year), then demanded to know why her son wasn't advancing. The Committee Chairman had to break it to her that we weren't an Alden G. Barber-model troop (an interesting scene, to say the least). But beyond all of that, let's face it: Scouting expounds Duty to God, Duty to Country, and Duty to Others, and none of that is endorsed by the key figures of modern popular culture, whom kids today seem practically enslaved to.