sherminator505

Threat?! Someone sees their rights going unrecognized and successfully sues. Where's the threat?

Ok, I guess that is what you meant. Anyone else feel the same way?

SP, please, please tell me that's not what you meant.

The silence is deafening...

That's only partially true. Part of the reasoning was also to counter obstructionism. A similar argument could be made for the pocket veto, whereby the President could watch Congress gallop out of town on their horses and simply do nothing, and possibly stave off an override of his veto until cooler heads prevailed. In more civilized times, we referred to such actions as statesmanship. Today, it appears that few people in politics on either side of the aisle understand the meaning of the word.

Still wondering about SP's comment...

Whoops, cross-posted. National probably did some market research and decided that a Commemorative Speaker's rifle probably wouldn't sell...(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

If recess appointments are so bad and so horrible, why are they provided for in the Constitution?

It's never politics as usual when it's the other guys- then it's treasonous, over the top, flagrant violations of the Constitution. But seriously, if real activity is any indicator, how does one determine if the Senate is EVER in session?

In response to SP's statement that the BSA is not limited in what it does by its Congressional Charter, I sincerely hope he does not mean that it is no longer bound by its original promise to the American people.

This borders on being an eponymous thread. But it raises a valid question- what is the point of the exercise that is Scouting? For the first several decades of Scouting's existence, the message was fairly consistent and mirrored the Congressional Charter; self-sufficiency, Scoutcraft in the outdoors, and preparation for citizenship guided by good values. When we as an organization decided that good management theory demanded we formulate "vision, mission, and values," things got a little goofy. We ended up with a mission statement that focused on values but neglected the importance of those values to effective citizenship. We stopped promoting Scouting as a common good and began marketing it to certain target demographics. Finally, we let sloganeering replace statements of purpose (that whole "Honor Society of Scouting" thing is a good example of this). I realize that there are probably more posts to come criticizing Kudu's "purist" stance followed by more posts by Kudu in defense of that stance, but I would hope we don't forget that there are legitimite questions underneath it all that need to be addressed intelligently for the good of the movement.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Getting back to the original topic, I'm getting the sense that we're not talking so much about "changing the Order" as "changing the Order back." If so, I don't disagree.

At the risk of making this an "all about Merlyn" thread, I'd respect him more if he had something constructive to offer. Still, I find him more tolerable than say, fermi91 or Kawidaphoenix.

Engineer61 - if those folks were in my district, I would be happy to tell them that at the next roundtable. It's something that I regularly remind fellow Scouters of, particularly the ones that use an "Eagle count" as a measure of success.

Pappadaddy, that finger in the eye won't soon be forgotten. I am trying VERY hard to remember that you are (presumably) a fellow Scouter and to temper my responses accordingly.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I really like this!

@desertrat77 - Yes. Exactly.

While I am still mystified that an Eagle would be turned away as an ASM simply because of age, I actually understand why some Troops might push their own Eagles out of the nest. Keep in mind that these young Eagles just spent several years as "one of the guys." Placing them in the same Troop as an ASM can create some awkward situations, as some of the Scouts AND some of the parents might still see him as "one of the guys." This can create respect issues, and some Troops might want to sidestep the awkwardness.

Today is Veterans' Day, and my thoughts go to the fine men and women who have fought and in some cases died for our country. Many of them were 19, 18, and in some cases 17, and a significant number of them were Eagles...

We do look askance at younger Scouters sometimes, don't we? Well, what would motivate a college-aged Eagle Scou to volunteer with a Troop in his adopted college town? Maybe a simple desire to continue Scouting? Maybe a sincere desire to pay what he received from Scouting forward to the next generation of Scouts? Now I'm sure there are folks like Engineer61 and the person quoted in the OP who are cynical enough to dismiss such notions out of hand, but I for one still have enough faith in the program to accept the idea that it still produces Eagle Scouts that are capable of quality leadership no matter where life takes them.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

@ Mr. Boyce - You might want to read the OP next time... @John-in-KC - Make mine chocolate cream, please!

I find myself posting less and less on what I refer to as "the policy" because I feel that I've said all that I need to on the topic. I find the mindset behind defending "the policy" infinitely more intriguing and confounding, but my fellow posters appear to be uninterested in picking *that* one up... (This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Even if you managed to get a blanket exception to the age requirement for Eagle, you would still have to deal with the reality that it takes more than a year to make Eagle. Through that lens, the plan would be perceived as cheapening or devaluing the Eagle and the idea would die there and then. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a commemorative Eagle rank patch that all Eagles could wear (perhaps with a matching hat pin) (This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I wouldn't be concerned about committee members not being in uniform even for an EBOR. Keep in mind that these folks are parents and businessmen, and since their direct contact without the Scouts is usually limited to boards of review, courts of honor and occasionally driving Scouts to and from outings, it is understandable that they wouldn't maintain a uniform. Of course, the local culture of Scouting might play a role in how one might view this issue. In our District Committee, for example, the uniform is expected, but not all districts are like that. (This message has been edited by sherminator505)

@fred8033 - Yes, I spun a thread out of I/P. I did it for a specific reason which you might get if you re-read my original post. I have observed that over the years the BSA seems to have transitioned from an organization centered on citizenship founded on strong values to an organization centered on values with nominal energy directed toward preparation for citizenship. This might appear to be a minor or subtle perception, but I felt that it merited exploration through a lens that is not purely political. So, when I started the Open Discussion thread, I was looking at the shifts I have noticed in the BSA in the 20+ years I have spent as a Scout and a Scouter. Now, exactly how much of these shifts are simply geared toward marketing to a certain demographic and how much represent a genuine ideological shift is unclear to me. What is clear to me is that there are some who would use Scouting itself for advancing a systematic political agenda, and quite frankly that bothers me a whole lot more than what anybody might say on any of these threads.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)