Kahuna

More fixing stuff that isn't broken.

Eamonn writes: "Back in the very early days of Scouting it is a well known fact that BP and James E. West didn't get on, didn't see eye to eye and BP wasn't very happy with what the Americans were up to." Not exactly right, but pretty close. Actually, B-P thought the BSA was hiring too many people to organize Scouting and do leader training (Professional Scouters). He certainly regarded West and the other professionals as "hired men," which galled West no end. And, of course, no one really got on with James E. West. What B-P failed to see was that, given the size of this country and the number of small, remote communities, it was probably the only way that the BSA could have done it. In Britain, much of the organizing and training on the national (and Empire) level was done by volunteers simply because Britain had a class of people who didn't work and had relatively a lot of money. Also, there was a work ethic in the UK that men worked hard for a number of years, earned lots of money, which, in the tax structure of the time, they got to keep most of. They then retired at an early age and devoted the rest of their lives to doing whatever they enjoyed. The US never had a class of nobility and the work ethic here was that even the rich worked until they died were too feeble to do anything. Most people worked long hours and didn't travel far beyond their own community. West's vision was of a nationwide movement under the banner of the BSA. The only way to accomplish that was exactly what he did: hire and train men to do the job. Of course, what happened was not unlike Lenin's vision of "the withering away of the state." (And I'm not comparing West to Lenin here, although he was a pretty autocratic man. ) The professionals never diminished in the structure of the BSA and, in fact, became the dominant figures in the structure. And, I suspect, that is exactly what West would have wanted. Whatever we think of the BSA today, it is mainly the policies of the professionals that shape it. I think Eamonn is correct that there are many on the National Executive Board who oppose gay Scouts or atheist Scouts, but there are some who think that view is wrong. The same is true at the local level. I think there will come a time when the "gay thing" will become local option or go away entirely, but it will be entirely guided by decisions from the professionals in Irving.

I don't see your point with those clips. Gretta van Susteran isn't a hard news reporter. York and the others on that panel are. At the time of the clip, they are saying the Romney tape had been out "for a couple of hours," so what kind of non-reporting are we talking about? More to the point, this is not what I consider something Fox said that later turned out to be false. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how it is. I'm sorry if you think I'm being argumentative. However, I AM being argumentative, because I think the answer to my original question is that no evidence of false hard news by Fox has yet been offered.

"The FOX news anchors are saying "What tape? Didn't know anything about a tape.." In which case, they had spent two days in a cave.." I believe you are mistaken. I first heard about the Mitt Romney tape on Fox News. I can't remember the exact time frame, but it was the night before I first saw it in the newspaper.

I think you are referring more to commentary than hard news as to Fox clips. What you see on Hannity or O'Reilly is not necessarily hard news. The MSNBC clip, OTOH, was presented in a news segment. "FOX alone will not give you the full picture." And certainly you will not find it on MSNBC.

"Then you can root for your conservatives when they swing a verbal punch, BUT, you will have HEARD the other side of the argument" I can and I do, but what we were discussing was the value of the news as given by Fox or any other network. As I said above, all news media has a point of view, because they are people. The best we can hope for is a fair, full presentation of facts in hard news programs. I also mentioned that it is necessary to go to other places to get a full spectrum of news. It's just been my experience that, after watching Fox for most of my hard news, I seldom find any in another source that I didn't hear from Fox. Everything said on this subject pretty much confirms my thinking in the beginning. Dislike of Fox is based simply on political perspective, as is my admitted dislike of MSNBC. However, MSNBC has given out information that is provably false. MSNBC edited the tapes of George Zimmerman's 911 call in such a way that it appeared he was after Martin because he was black. The full transcript showed he was answering a direct question when he first said anything about race. They later changed the story, but never admitted their bias. That was covered as hard news. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has pointed out factual errors in Fox's news reporting.

"Watching only FOX news is like have two children and only listening to one of them when they get in a tussle, or something gets broken." Certainly true, but equally true of any news source. I find the other news sources also pretty much tell you only their side of the story. That is certainly true of MSNBC. I hope you don't just watch their side of the story. However, with the internet, it's possible to get a wide variety of news from all over, including Canada and the UK, which often have news stories about the U.S. not heard here. I just find it interesting that so many people diss Fox, which has the largest viewing audience of any cable news organization (in most cases, more than the other cable news services combined) and claim they are lying to viewers. While it is true that their slant is conservative (I would not say Republican), they do present liberal commentators on most issues where there are viewpoints being offered. What is really interesting to me is that most liberals will simply not appear on that network in spite of invitations to do so. It appears to me that on the other networks, the liberals are allowed to pretty much say what they want, whereas on Fox they get called out when they are BSing or rattling talking points.

Can someone please point to something given as hard news (as opposed to commentators or analysts) on Fox News that has turned out to be false? This is not meant to be a snarky question. I watch Fox News for both news and panels. Obviously, some of the commentators say things that can be disputed, but I've never seen anything false given as hard news.

My warnings were coming from Firefox. I had to override to get into the site. My other anti-spyware hasn't picked up anything.

"For some boys, the "building from scratch" is part of the adventure. But you're probably right. The boys who think "I've already roughed it 12 nights this years" is less likely to buy in to this Jambo's marketing than the boys who think 'I've only roughed it 12 nights this year.' " Exactly. The fun and skills will be synonymous for some kids. We'll see how many. In my troop we camped monthly year around, so we didn't normally choose a summer camp that required us to cook, pitch tents or those kinds of things. We went for the fun of summer camp and whatever the boys chose to make of the experience.

"Kahuna, I'll send you our fee for prepping staff for your week." No need. I'll not be going to summer camp again in this lifetime, unless someone makes me an offer I can't refuse. That would involve air conditioning, hot showers, coffee in bed, etc. As to Jamborees: It seems to me that they should be like everything else in Scouting is supposed to be - fun for boys! I never looked at Jamborees as a way of teaching or even demonstrating Scouting skills. They have historically been like state fairs. If trading patches is your thing, fine. If earning merit badges, fishing, or just walking around seeing what other Scouts are doing, that's fine too. Jamborees are expensive and will only appeal to a certain group of youth. I'm not at all sure that The Summit is going to satisfy that group, but we will see.

Yeah, but people in the BSA have long been known to be somewhat obsessed with the idea that flip flops and bare feet are the bane of society. It's been that way since the 1960s. Even in Hawaii, where so many Mainlanders have crept into Scouting over the years. I blame the hippies.

A very early rule I learned as SM was "Never go to the first week of camp. Never go to the last week of camp. NEVER go to the first week of a brand new camp. 2013 Jamboree (and I wish them well) has practically every element of everything I have learned to stay away from. I went to the 1969 Jambo as an SM and the 2010 one as staff. Enjoyed every minute of both. Thanks and luck to those hardy souls who are brave enough to go where no Scouts have gone before. (This message has been edited by kahuna)

My only real Cub Scout experience was Day Camp back in the 1970s. We had a "quiet time" after lunch and I read to the boys from Julia Seton's book of stories. They liked it very much. Never read to my Boy Scouts, but I used to tell them scary stories from H.P. Lovecraft and recite "The Cremation of Sam McGee" at campfires, or just a bedtime sitting around a lantern at summer camp. I guess they liked it. They would ask me on every camping trip for a story.

"citizenship MB's they are the most boring, crappy badges out there" In general, yes, but you've never been to one of mine. And they ARE required for Eagle, so you'd think some kids don't want to spend their time at summer camp writing stupid essays so they can get checked off on the MB because they can sit and write.

So what? Is this some kind of affront to Scouting? Who cares? It's a Facebook page. You can put anything you want, within reason, on there. "But it shows that there is a need for more and qualified MBC's" I don't know about that. I've been on the list for 5 badges, 3 of them Citizenships, for five years. I've never been called. The only candidates I get are from visiting local troops.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ . . .

My old SM from 1960 is still going strong at eighty-something. He is a Unit Commissioner. He can still wear the old green (actually, olive drab) wool uniform he had back then. We correspond from time to time, but he doesn't do internet.

Of all the council histories I've read, which is a lot, I recommend Fun and Service: A History of the Boy Scouts of America in the Miami Valley Council (Dayton, OH). If you can find it. It was illustrated by Eagle Scout Milt Caniff, who used to do Steve Canyon and Terry and the Pirates comic strips.

Thanks for that list, infoscouter! Sadly, most of them are not available at all and if you do find one, the prices are very high these days. It would be really nice if the National Scouting Museum had these in its archives. I have dealt with them frequently over the past couple of years and don't believe they have many, if any. I probably will donate the ones I have collected, but only when I'm sure I don't need more information out of them. Twocubdad has a point. The number of people who care about history of any kind are few and far between. Scouting history even more so. Still, guys like David Scott manage to sell books in some numbers. So, maybe there is still hope.

Sadly, mine (Central Florida Council) doesn't. However, that may be my next project. My book on professional Scouters in the early days, Men of Schiff, will be out by the first of the year, so maybe I will take that on, if I can convince the council folks to back me. Also, sadly, I have waited until many of the people who could have really told me the story have passed away. Central Florida didn't have a council until relatively late, but it has an interesting history and, because of the location, many early Scouters visited or had summer homes here. E. Urner Goodman used to visit. I had the good fortune to find many council history books for sale on the Internet. Not all are still in print and most are pretty old. I'm glad to hear David is doing Circle Ten.

>>Why do folks believe the man is such an extreme lefty?

The primary rule of political debates is: The first one to use the word "Nazi" or "racist" has lost the debate. Not that there aren't Nazis or racists. There are. But they are not where the other side is usually pointing.

It's pretty dramatic from those stats. I just finished some research on Narragansett Council, RI. In 1962, the council had 26,631 total youth in 545 units. Today, according to the council website, they serve "almost" 26,000 members. The council is geographically larger, as I understand it, today than it was in 1962. I'm sure the current numbers include LFL.

>>Obama has been a moderate