skeptic

America's First Boy Scout by Daniel N. Jabe Who was America's first Boy Scout? That depends on how you look at it. Would the first Boy Scout be the first one to join the Boy Scouts of America after it was established in February of 1910? Would the first Boy Scout be a Scout who was already using Baden-Powell's "Scouting for Boys," maybe as early as 1908 or even 1907? Would the first Boy Scout be the first boy to join an organization that ultimately merged with the Boy Scouts of America, like the Woodcraft Indians or the Sons of Daniel Boone? Any of these individuals would have a strong claim to this distinction. What follows is the story of one of the candidates for the honor of being America's first Boy Scout. It may be partially legend, but in part, every story is. According to recently discovered notes written by William D. Durling, the Scout Executive in Trenton, New Jersey, from 1917 to 1921 who passed away in 1946, Daniel Carter Beard once said that the first Boy Scout was a Trenton boy named Maurice F. Brandt. Maurice's father, Robert Brandt, owned a print shop in Trenton at the corner of Broad and Front Streets. In 1905, Dan Beard came into Brandt's shop to order prints of one of his drawings. The drawing was a charter for a boy's organization he was trying to get off the ground the Sons of Daniel Boone. Maurice, then 12 years old, met Dan Beard, and, according to Durling, they took a liking to each other. Maurice eagerly listened to Beard's teachings, and he "started out at once to make good." In recognition of his efforts and enthusiasm, Dan Beard granted him Charter No. 1 in the Sons of Daniel Boone. According to Durling's notes, as a member of Beard's new group, Maurice conducted hikes, "short and long, camps overnight and a week's duration, nature study, map drawing, care of health, character building and getting acquainted with the country and all roads and trails." Maurice even arranged for Dan Beard to speak to some of the boys, and kept up his interest in the Sons of Daniel Boone until the very end, when it merged with the Boy Scouts of America in 1910. According to Durling, Maurice thought that Dan Beard was "the most wonderful man living." Judging by his success in working with and inspiring young boys, many others probably would have agreed. Was Maurice Brandt America's first Boy Scout? No one will ever be able to say for certain, but his story provides us with an insight into one of the men whose character and personality would make boys clamor to call themselves the first member of one of his organizations Dan Beard. He was the author of one of the most successful children's books of his day, "The American Boys Handybook," and a famed illustrator (he provided illustrations for Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court," among other works), but above all else, he was a Scout, and a leader of boys. He was the type of man who would make an effort to win the affection and interest of his printer's boy, just in the course of business. That is because, for a man like Beard, teaching boys like Maurice was the course of business. Printing books and charters or giving out awards that was merely incidental. As you browse through the memorabilia in the galleries, and read the histories assembled here, remember to keep this lesson of Beard's in mind: all of this is incidental to the real meaning of Boy Scouting the boy. The details about Maurice Brandt came from an article by Emil Slaboda appearing on the website of the Central New Jersey Council.

Is that where Pedro will go to retire?

Yep, the schools generally do not seem to do a very good job with history. A large percentage of current middle schoolers do not seem to even really know about Viet Nam, much less anything prior. I sub, and because they almost always want to know how old I am, I tell them I was born during WWII. Less than half of most classes either do not know the approximate dates, or even what it really was. It led to quite a discussion once when we were reading one of the Scholastic Reader magazines, and the main article had to do with an upcoming anniversary of "D Day". What is really to bad is that we were unable to give it the attention their questions deserved, as I had to stick to the lesson plan. I did leave a note for the teacher about their interest, but since it was near year end, it is unlikely much came of it. On the same note, that I was born during WWII. If I tell them 1944, most seem unable to determine my age, even in 7th and 8th grade. Deep breath.

Vol; I have to ask. Why then is Fox not trumpeting this all over?

It seems to me that often simply the title will set someone off. And today, some books that do not get challenged might very well not pass muster in earlier years, and simply because of the title. An example of an extremely popular book in the lower grades in this area is the book EVERYBODY POOPS, or something to that effect. When I was that age, it likely would not have passed the test, even though it is pretty innocuous in reality. And today, if the title had Poops replaced with another over used common word in usage today, the book would not be allowed. And, I would surmise that it is very likely a large percentage of the books banned or that bring complaints have not been actually read by those bringing them up.

How ironic, or maybe simply sad, that the majority of this thread tends to reflect exactly the problem the title is about.

Tend to agree that there is some kind of confusion here. I have never heard of a dual charter; I have heard of dual chartering organizations, but they still have to adhere to the BSA charter partner agreement. Like two small churches agreeing to sponsor one unit. It would seem to me that the CAP would be chartered as a CAP unit, and the Venture Crew as Ventures. Could they do things together? Why not? They simply would do what needed to be done to make dual activities workable. But, if somehow a CAP group wanted to charter a Venture Crew, they would still have to adhere to BSA rules, and they would then have a possible conflict within their own group. Cannot see a council even allowing it, frankly.

Amen! Thank you for the reminder epistle. I find most of your "advice" posts to be very insightful and to the point. It is great to have such a generally calm, sage voice here on the board. YIS

So, Vol; are you one of the doctors who will quit if health care changes finally occur? Part of the supposedly 40% or so, according to the "truth news station", Fox? Just curious.

Am I again missing something here? Are not the sites mentioned all open to public scrutiny already anyway? If you post anything on a web site, especially these kind, it can be viewed and spread by somebody if they truly wish to. "Hello; Mr. Common-Sense,please come out of hiding!"

Sorry; "old timer disesase" ; forgot the comic relief intended.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

vol: Perhaps the problem lies with your statement. "We lost the war". Somehow I often get the impression that still IS the issue with too many. "We won; they lost". That was over a hundred years ago; maybe it is time to try to put it aside?

"The right sort of camp is an education. It supplements the teaching of the school. ................. "Camp teaches the boy self-reliance, self-support, self-respect ..... "Camp teaches the boy that it is the spirit and the spiritual side of things that count. It is not only in the church that the boy comes close to God. The starry sky above him, the wonders of nature around him, the wild things that live in the woods and the streams reveal God's message."

When you apologize, then get in the media and basically recant the apology, it has little meaning. Putting a disrespectful person on a pedestal as some kind of hero because you dislike the person at whom the disrespect was aimed says as much about you as it does the perpetrator. And there lies the rub. It would likely have mellowed and been put in the background if "crazies" had not immediately made him a martyr. He is not; and now he has negated any pretense of a real apology. The President though, can be the better man, and publicly ask his party members to let it go. He might care to point out to them that he already said he accepted the apology, so they should leave it at that. With the general political environment today, it likely won't; and that is too bad.

Sctldr; Limited funding I can definitely go for; but I would not only limit, but make it funds that they raise, not granted from government in any way. As an adjunct to that, add on a requirement that each would be allowed only "n" number of tv ads, and local markets would be required to donate say 1-3 spots for every local candidate (no national ones). Would never happen of course in this period of history, because the control is not ours. But these kind of things might again allow candidates to run that do not now, due to the ridiculous cost of winning. Also still feel term limits have their place, but they need to be designed far better than most in place now are. JMO

Hopefully, those on these boards that do not see a problem with this type of behavior, do not relay that attitude to their scouts. "Live the Twelve"; "Do Your Best"! Simple, it seems. If we can even come close, it will be an improvement.

Priorities: Assuring most people "can" get coverage, at least at the minimal level. Eliminating overlap in government programs already in place and making them more efficient. (I have been on V.A. since "losing" private coverage due to expense after downsizing. But now I am more or less forced into Medicare too with a $100 a month cost, even though my needs are met by V.A. So far, it does not appear that Medicare will cover my out of pocket for V.A., nor the reverse; and copays for Medicare are relatively high). Making preventive care, especially basic physicals mandatory. This is the dumbest component out there in most "plans". Why would anyone not prefer $300-$500 a year preventive costs in lieu of possibly thousands should something show up due to lack of screening? Just simply does not make sense. Taking profit component out of the public system. That, as has been shown many times, is probably the number one reason for much of the inflation in costs. No denials for preexisting conditions, or cutting people off when it suddenly becomes unprofitable. No clerks, or so called billing specialists, making medical decisions and denying coverage. Only "properly trained" medical specialist should do this. Surely there are other things, but these are the things most irksome and unfair to me at the moment. And, I would like to see opponents of suggested changes and proposals currently offered "publicly" publish their alternate proposals, rather than simply cry "NO" and endorse fear and half truths. (This last one of course would relate to more than just medical care).

mmhardy; Someone will, I can almost guarantee; watch for it tomorrow when the holiday is over and Fox comes back on in hyper mode.

Let's call it what it is; PARANOIA and HATE. This comes directly from the crazies that have found their way into public view with more and more outlandish accusations, off the wall stories, and bigotry. They do not like President Obama, period; and they will say and do anything to try and make his job more difficult. Their biggest fear is that he might actually make some positive change. It also appears some are intimidated by the fact that he has a brain and actually tries to use it. Why do so many of these fanatics seem to denigrate intelligence? The man is certainly not perfect, and obviously, he has made some decisions he likely would change if he could do a "do over". He took over the most difficult job in the world (most likely) and some of the absolute worst problems the country has had in decades. Even if you do not like the man, he is still the president. What are we teaching kids when we give these kinds of examples? Shields up. Just do not send Beck after me, please.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

What do we need to do to block someone and keep it blocked? I have tried to block a number of posters whose nonsense eventually annoys me to the limit; but they never stay blocked. They are still listed, a couple more than once, on my list. But they continue to show to me. Is this a function of automatic cookie removal? Anyone have an answer?

Both miracles and magic have to be believed to start. But, magic does actually have a valid explanation, though often difficult to comprehend for most of us. Miracles, as Ed notes, defy any logical or known explanation, even with in depth analysis; or they have valid reasons perhaps, but seem supernatural in a particular context or time. But, to believe in miracles, one is likely to also believe in God; both require a level of faith. For me, when I was about 9, I saw a miracle; but I cannot prove it was, and it had logical scientific explanations. But the occurrence, in context, was a "miracle of faith". To me, it proved my grandfather's faith that God would take care of things at the moment. Many will say, especially since it does have meteorological explanations, it was a simple coincidence; but in its context it was more than that. So, like much discussed or argued, miracles will never be validated or proven false in everyone's eyes. Faith is personal. Blind faith is foolish. Denial of faith as real is egotism. JMO

Oh, so should our old friend "Common Sense" be introduced to the web? Sorry, I forgot that he/she seems to have disappeared, rarely resurfacing. And when she/he does, it immediately seems to be seen as either a miracle or an attack on civilization. Do what you can to protect yourself, your family, and personal information. If they want to find it, and you put it there, even behind barriers, they likely can get to it if it if they really want to. Just like we lock doors, close windows, and sometimes use security devices on our homes, offices, and cars; thieves and miscreants still get in. Often it is because we become complacent, because our precautions have worked.

Lisa; Years ago, when I had only been a SM for a couple years at most, I remember having a conversation late at night with two older scouts standing by the dying fire. I was asked a question along the same lines, though maybe a bit more pointed. I remember discussing the idea that searching is okay, and that everyone eventually arrives at a personal conclusion. But we also talked about how things change with experience and maturity. After a short time, I asked them to come away from the fire a ways to a clearing. It was a clear night with no moon, or at least not up yet, at 5700 feet in the mountains of Southern California. I asked them to just spend a few moments looking at the sky, then consider their question again. Then I went to bed and left them alone. Later, they both indicated to me that they had not come to a final conclusion; but they had no doubt that something greater than themselves existed. One of the great "impact" possibilities with our outdoor program.

Lisa; While this is a "walk carefully" situation, I am somewhat confused by why the term agnostic is of concern anyway. As you noted, this is beat to death in the other area of the forum; but agnosticism seems to me to be the act of searching for something, and that still recognizes a spiritual significance, just does not specify it directly. Possibly a simple explanation to that effect is all that may be needed. Please, for those that do not agree, this is not the place to argue. And I choose not to argue. This is simply my take.

Part of being a teen is questioning and searching. We need to do what we can to help a scout find "his" beliefs and direction, without pushing him to accept things he does not want at this time. Still, we do need to try to bring to the front that his position is normal, and that being reverent is a personal thing that can manifest itself in many ways, not just in established, main line religions. Spirituality is personal. As an adult, I have found myself questioning again and again, especially when confronted by truly challenging occurrences in my life or in public view. Ultimately, he needs to reach his own decision. Most, in my experience, do find their own spiritual grounding.