desertrat77

Schiff, Baker tents--wow! That is certainly "back in the day." Those weren't very light either, if memory serves. We were issued well-designed nylon red tents, each with a separate fly that could be used by itself on warm nights. BW crew photo and wood fire: check and check. Ajax: we used tetrox, which was applied in the same manner. We were warned about the gastrointestinal danger of even a little bit getting into the food.

I think I resemble that as well!

It really is! So much has changed since I was a youth. I've been trying to get back for decades but work and family commitments did not permit. Then, lo and behold, events lined up and I found myself as part of a 2018 contingent, and my work scheduled allowed me to attend PSR-PASS. A good rule of thumb that applied to me: if the last time you camped at Philmont, the standard was to cook all of your meals on fire, you'll learn a lot at PSR-PASS.

I definitely resemble that remark.

I've read it, and will re-read it again in the near future. It's a great book and now has a special place on my book shelf.

I've attended PSR-PASS and SmithsRow captures the experience perfectly. If you've never been to Philmont, or it's been looooooooong time (like me), I'd highly recommend the PSR-PASS. @@backpack, I completely understand if you're a former ranger, it may not be necessary to go. But for folks like me, it was a great chance to be back, learn new techniques, backpack with a group of wonderful scouters and staff, and recapture that Philmont spirit.

A scout is brave. An aspiring Eagle must be able to articulate his thoughts, even on controversial topics. My ebor was in 1977. It was a grilling, good and proper. I'll never forget it and will always respect the board members. Great prep for the future.

I recently served on a Baloo staff for the first time, responsible for the outdoor portion. It was apparent in the first minute that most, if not all, of the attendees were very knowledgeable about camping, cooking, etc, and were comfortable in the outdoors. We spent our allotted time verifying, discussing, sharing. There was certainly no need for me to "teach" them a topic they already knew. It would be helpful if an overnight camp option was available for those who want it. Otherwise, it's another time commitment for people who don't need to go over basic camping skills. My biggest takeaway: they were all in their 20's and 30's. Still active, young, energetic, pursuing careers and raising families. If they are going to make time for training, it needs to be quick, useful, and respectful.

25 dollars? That is astounding! What is their rationale for such a high fee?

I like Parkman's suggestion of a staff cook team. I've seen that work well in a couple different places. There are scouters who don't necessarily want to staff events but they'd welcome the opportunity to keep the fire going, the coffee pot hot and full, sit around and shoot the breeze, and whip up great meals. The district I'm in now is very small and everyone is double-hatted with a troop or crew. So during district camporees all of the staffers dine with their home troop/crew.

Crossing over from Webelos in '74, I recall many bitter senior scouts and scouters expressing their dislike for the ISP. These are the ones that stuck with the program even though they hated what National had done. One particular bone of contention was the redesign of the Eagle patch. It changed into the wordless "chicken in the messkit with red/white/blue grease" as one Eagle described it. Some scouters with connections in the Far East had pretty accurate bootleg old school patches made. But overall, they disliked everything. The anemic handbook. The possibility that a scout could earn Eagle without requiring any camping, be it the skill award or the MB. The flimsy new uniform. Etc. They stayed anyway. And offered us young ones a program that resembled the one they came up under before ISP. Still, there were many scouters that left and didn't come back.

Not comparing. Just pointing out that Trump isn't the first president to criticize the WH (or be accused of it). Harry definitely criticized it, and I admire his candor on that and many other topics.

I don't think the YMCA or the organizations we are discussing changed their practices because they wanted to. Times and expectations changed and they had to adapt. Things may not resemble the original configuration. They could have stayed exactly the same and withered on the vine.

Well, I'm confused. Not the first time. Nonetheless, I still get a chuckle from Harry S.'s quote. A man who spoke his mind and didn't give a hoot what anyone thought about it.

I think he was referring to the condition of the WH, not what it represents. None other than Harry Truman, a darn good Democrat, said "The White House is the finest prison in the world."

Truth! Loses party nomination in '08 to neophyte Obama + loses election '16 to non-politician Trump = completely unelectable* *I don't count that gimme US senate seat from NY.

I'm going to sew on a lodge flap from my present lodge that was available about two years before I joined. It's very simple, well designed, and promotes council camps. It's too great not to wear. @@Col. Flagg, please consider sewing on that '77 jambo patch! I'm not a jambo person and probably will never go, but I still enjoying seeing those old jambo patches. True scouting legacy.

That might indeed be the case. I suspect the President has had enough of the shenanigans. Loyalty can only extend so far in their line of work. When the staff's collective weirdness is too much, it's time for pink slips. All partisanship aside, Bannon and Conway are constant magnets for controversy, and I can't imagine any work they produce is worth the trouble. Kushner will be reporting directly to Kelly. I believe he's smart enough to know the score and will adapt to the new play book.

General Kelly is cleaning house as the new chief of staff. I'll bet you a dutch oven cobbler that during his interview with the President, Gen Kelly said something along these lines: "Mr. President, if you hire me, and I accept, I've got to have carte blanche. Otherwise, no soap." That's the only way he can get the staff in any semblance of order. He's got the iron and experience to deal with the confused/disorganized/backbiting new staffers, as well as the passive aggressive employees leftover from the previous administration. Otherwise, a retired four-star general has other things that he could do that are far more lucrative, with fewer headaches.

Colonel Flagg, I concur. The OA isn't what it used to be once it changed from the "brotherhood of honor campers" to "honor society." From the 1975 OA Handbook, page 18: "Always remember that by electing you to the Order because of your camping ability and Scouting spirit you were honored by them [scouts in the unit who elected you]. "They set you apart as one from whom they expected a great deal. They expect you to give leadership in camping and cheerful service. "Therefore, you must resolve not to let them down! Keep this in mind as you seek to qualify for OA membership through the Ordeal." Usually, scouts who were the best campers and hardest workers were elected. And once elected, the arrowmen eagerly stepped forward every time the call went out for the truly dirty jobs. The tougher the job, the better. Plus volunteering to judge camporee events and such. Today? I'm not seeing it. Every now and again, a flash from the past. Overall, not so much. Indeed, perhaps Venturing could start the old ideals anew.

It's my strong hunch that Mr. S knew exactly what he was doing, his protests afterwards notwithstanding. He was looking for a specific outcome. Mission accomplished. I've heard this kind of language for years in the military, at all levels. As for LBJ, let's remember that he was president in a different era. If the press reported everything they knew about him, he would have been run out of DC when he was still a young representative from TX. I've read several biographies on him, and what he said in public and private would burn off many peoples' ears today. The press had a completely different philosophy back then. They didn't feel the need to report every foible and misstep by public figures. That self governing aspect of the journalistic "profession" is long-gone now.

There was a sentence or two (going from memory) stating that women could do this program too. But the program directors weren't going to adjust the physical fitness standards. Both genders are going to have to do the same amount of PT.

I don't think this program started in a vacuum. There's probably a demand for it. I think it's related to the interest in ultra marathons, extreme fitness, difficult obstacle courses, etc. Men (and women) pay hundreds of dollars for early morning boot camp fitness regimens...for the privilege of being yelled at by a drill instructor. Pushed hard and held accountable. These things aren't for everyone. But there are some folks who sense they missed something growing up. They weren't pushed to their true potential. Or they feel the need for a rite of passage. I'm not sure about the correct psychological or sociological phrasing. Some people want to achieve something difficult. To be proud of something they accomplished. That's why we see framed marathon completion medals and runner's bibs, and the like. The link states that men (and women) must be 18 to participate. The physical fitness standards will not be adjusted by gender, however. Here is what society has told children for decades: 1. Don't push yourself 2. You are fine just the way you are 3. Winning doesn't count, just have fun 4. Wanting to win is selfish and hurts other people's feelings 5. Spelling doesn't matter 6. People shouldn't judge, so there's no need to improve yourself 7. Everyone gets a trophy to prevent hurt feelings 8. A good effort is equal to actual accomplishment Etc. Some men grow up and look back and realize they've missed opportunities. An overprotective mom didn't let them play sports. Or an absent dad never bothered to teach the young lad how to be a gentleman. Or mom and/or dad didn't want their son to join scouting and risk getting hurt. So these men and women are trying to fulfill competitive desires, and fill gaps in their knowledge and habits. Plus--and this is just a hunch--there are lots of lonely people out there. Even with social media, I've never seen so many lonely people in my life. This may be yet another way to connect with like-minded people.

From what I've read and heard, the only people getting upset are adults. The youth seem to have taken it with a grain of salt, and moved on to other things. Perhaps the adults can take a cue from the scouts and do the same. Has helicopter parenting "evolved" to raising cain if--gasp--their kids hear a political speech that they (the parents) don't agree with? My kids grew up moving every couple years. I know some of the outlandish political things they were taught/exposed to in a few particular school systems. I didn't make an angry speech at the school board or call the news media. I may have had a polite chat with the teacher to find out if something was lost in translation. Most of the time, it was a good opportunity to further the discussion at home. Truly this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Trial run or are they the first to enact a BSA-wide change?