skeptic

Let's look at this from the perspective of what our society in general does in education. "No Child Left Behind" has proven to be a wonderful idea, but not very practical in the way it is being pushed. Important cultural subjects are being put in the "if we can find time" category, while teachers are basically teaching to the test rather than developing independent knowledge. Passing the test is all that is important; it makes no difference if you forget it afterwards. Scout skills need to be practiced, or they will not be remembered very well, especially pioneering, compass, and even first aid. So teaching the skill and having it replicated satisfactorily is only the first step. There needs to be a way to "keep the skill", by regular all inclusive troop practice and using it in the field if possible. We no longer can do many things in camping that we did even in the 60's due to forest and conservation restrictions. There also is far less need to actually "use" many of these skills. For example, most modern tents, even if they have guy lines, have wood or metal toggles to take tension. Every summer, I have to show kids and adults how to use the taut-line to take up the slack in wall tents, since the toggles are broken or missing. Few of them have really understood the "utility" of the knot. When I was a newbie scout in 1955 I thought I would never make tenderfoot. We had to know seven knots, and in our troop, you tied them all correctly in succession twice. Miss even one, and you came back the next week. Then, even if you did it one week, you had to do it again the next or start over. That was the way it was. In camp, we actually needed to make gadgets because there were no pre-made ones. So, where does that leave us? Find ways I guess to replicate the skills and make them useful? No easy answers, but no matter what, we really need to make sure the scout at least does it completely and correctly more than once, even initially. JMHO

One way to keep the citizenship focus there, but eliminate required badges would possibly be putting them back into a single badge in the manner of the old Civics badge. Some general requirements that are inclusive of all 3 levels, then some more specific focus in one or two requirements for each area. Not sure about Family Life, which is really sort of related to the old Citizenship in the Home and the Family Living skill award. Could also re-institute the grouping ideas for some required badges like we had in the 50's; choose one from -----, that type of thing. But, what would do the most good, IMHO, is to put some time restrictions on the early ranks again; a boy could still get to FC in a year, but it would possibly strengthen the basic skills a bit if done right, especially putting something akin to signaling in again. I know for me, that was absolutely the most difficult part of FC; but it instilled a certain level of life growth by making me focus and work hard to accomplish it.

From what is viewable, I would have to say this is NOT a scouting uniform from that era, or even an earlier era. Frankly, it looks more like the Japanese military uniforms seen in many WWII photos if anything. Realistically, it is likely an outfit put together from what was available at the time under stressful circumstances. JMHO.

"Perhaps someone should "try" to explain that to the current Executive team! Not that they actually understand or care." I don't know what that means. Redefining the intent and meaning of "Executive Privilege"; e.g. refusing to respond to Congressional orders and so on. Fabricating special rules which fly in the face of our constitution and claiming it as their right, due to National Security. You cannot have forgotten that?!!?

"Congress makes policy. The President only executes it." Perhaps someone should "try" to explain that to the current Executive team! Not that they actually understand or care. Ooops; my disfavor is showing. Sorry. Frankly, I am not sure there is a politician of any ilk that really cares about the actual issues or what his or her constituents actually think, or how things effect them. But maybe I am just being cynical again.

Mr. LeRoy: It seems to me that you have, as part of your agenda, the idea that everybody in the BSA should abide by your understanding of how membership requirements should be administered. What you appear to never see is that most of the people who actually work within the program are not there to be nit pickers, but rather to do whatever is reasonable to bring the program to the greatest amount of youth possible. Your constant harping on the idea that a youth's statement made from a still maturing mind set should immediately be a reason to "kick them out" simply proves to me how narrow your mind is. Most of us realize, as has been noted many times, that these youth are likely still searching for a final conclusion. Expecting an adolescent to have made an absolute decision about spiritual matters is really showing poor understanding. Of course I realize that you will have your usual flippant comeback that our allowing gray areas in our interpretations is being hypocritical. Most rational individuals see it for what it is; simply allowing them to search and grow. (This message has been edited by skeptic)

Jeans, or their equivalent for the period in history; always technically. As already noted, uniforming is not an absolute, at least on paper. Some troops have very specific policies, but it is not required; and partial uniforms have generally been considered as better than none at all. Many old photos will show all kinds of mis-matched attire, especially in the depression, but very few larger group photos from the early days have 100% uniforming.

It is "almost" funny, but actually sad the way some individuals on this board seem to live in a black cloud of negativity. Instead of constantly digging for any and all you perceive as wrong, then going on incessantly about it, why don't you just focus on your own troops or areas and work to improve them? It would not surprise me to find out a few of the worst are not even actually involved at this point, but are only here to stir the pot. While there are lots of reasons to question some decisions, and even some very specific negative occurrences, most are completely blown out of proportion, and considering the size of the organization, a very small incidence comparatively. Flame barrier up!!

Somewhere I believe I read that they are planning on offering the pamphlets through regular bookstores, such as Barnes and Noble. A good reason to make them more attractive visually, even if the content remains the same. Time will tell, but sounds like a good idea to me.

Have to agree with GW on this. We have a website, and half the members have never visited it, even though it has calendar, notices, congratulations, historical data, and tons of photos. Do not know how many times a scout or parent has told me they did not know such and such; asked why they did not look at the web site, they just shrugged and said it took too much time. Many seldom read emails either, then complain that they were not contacted. But they do not answer the phone or return calls either. Much has to do with simply the way they live. Whatever is in front of them at the moment is what is important and gets their attention.

In regard to this discussion about the Gay issue, I think Neal's description of the development is fairly on target. What bothers me though is the idea that somehow BSA, by taking the more traditional path has become a pariah to so many, at least publicly. Scouting no where says that these individuals are bad people, only that their particular "open" or "public" displays of acceptance of what is called a lifestyle is not an acceptable role model for leadership. This has been beat to death in this forum, as well as in many others. The real problem is that a small group is trying to force a quick change, and that will not happen. All the changes of this type are slow, and sometimes revert due to new information or the possible backlash against an overly aggressive program. I can see that coming. I have to wonder how much the Gay Agenda has contributed to the recently discovered inaccurate statistics on AIDS within that community. Somehow, the idea that it now okay to live this way may have caused many to be less careful in their personal lives. Too much emphasis in the wrong place, while down-playing a real danger within their midst. Certainly, this is one of the areas on which the "poor example" is based. There seems to be a reckless attitude among the most outspoken and over the top individuals who spearhead this agenda to the public. JMO and observation.

From what I see and hear, Scouting is still respected and cool with a large majority; but they are those proverbial "silent" ones. We are not cool with the loud, out-spoken, often obnoxious PC people who, unfortunately includes much of the media. I think, at least from first impressions, our new Executive has recognized a lot of this and is attempting to focus the public more on all the positive elements and not over-react to the negative press attacks, while building on the solid parts of the foundation. We will see.

Many counselors teach Citizenship like school, especially Nation, as the info needed tends to be like a school subject. I know a number of them who use actual tests for Nation and World, especially if teaching at a "merit badge" midway or fair. There were some examples on "meritbadge.com". As someone noted earlier someplace, Nation pretty much follows the Constitution Test material used in middle schools. When I was a scout here in California, teachers were accepted counselors for this, and if you passed the state test, you passed the merit badge. A test is one more type of tool to use, and may sometimes be a preferred method.

Not sure if this has been addressed to any extent recently. What are some of your thoughts on the semi-duplication of some knots for different programs, and having special knots for similar jobs in these programs. The ones I particularly do not really understand are the Scouter's Training and Scouter's Key. Why do they have separate knots for the cub part of the program, rather than simply wearing the cub device? This makes very little sense to me. Maybe I have just not been shown the logic.

Sorry Gold Winger; don't know where the GB came from. Now, on to the incredulous comments. Actually, there are many scientists that indicate they eat spiders, along with lots of other bugs, but also other types of things. Even the source you quote indicates they are opportunistic eaters. Anyway, here are some other sources: HARVESTMEN ECOLOGY Average Daddy Longlegs eat a wide variety of foods, including: aphids, caterpillars, beetles, flies, mites, small slugs, snails, earthworms, spiders, other harvestmen, decaying plant and animal matter, bird droppings and fungi. One in a terrarium will survive on tidbits of bread, butter and fatty meat as well. If you watch one eat, notice how after each meal it draws its legs one at a time through its jaws, cleaning them. Birds are among its enemies. Daddy Longlegs release a stinking odor as a defense against predators. Every ten days or so the average Daddy Longlegs molts. It splits open its body case, or exoskeleton, then takes about 20 minutes to drag its long legs from their old casings. Once you watch Daddy-longlegs long enough, you might notice that there's a smaller-bodied, long-legged form, and a larger-bodied, shorter-legged one. The small-bodied, long-legged one is the male. There are over a hundred Daddy-longlegs species in North America north of Mexico! What do Opiliones eat? "Everything", almost. There are many kinds of Opiliones and some seem to have distinct preferences in what they eat while most seem to be less choosy and eat almost anything, especially animal matter. Some species are predatory on small insects, snails, worms, etc., whereas others walk around nibbling on plants, fruits, and dead material that they find. In captivity, you can try feeding your Opiliones freshly chopped meal worms or other juicy insects. Oatmeal, a little piece of fruit or nut might also be eaten. Daddy-long-legs usually are inactive and hidden during the day, then at sunset, they begin to wander about searching for food. Many Opiliones feed on live insects, especially aphids. Other species feed on dead insects or plant juices. ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/pdf/2060B.pdf daddy longlegs Britannica Concise Encyclopedia | Date: 2007 [or harvestman] Any of the 3,400 arachnid species constituting the order Opiliones. Daddy longlegs differ from spiders in having extremely long, thin legs and a spherical or oval body that is not divided in two. The body is approximately 0.051.0 in. (122 mm) long; the fragile legs may be 20 times the body length. Males are smaller than females. Adults have a pair of glands that secrete a foul-smelling fluid. Daddy longlegs are very widely distributed in temperate regions and in the tropics. The U.S. and Canada have about 150 species. They feed on insects, mites, spiders, carrion, and vegetable matter. crane fly. (This message has been edited by skeptic)

Time for a serious editing here. Possibly more. JMHO

Funny, when I first came back to the program, I felt embarrassed every time I was singled out for something, such as a plague or certificate. When I was awarded the DOM, it finally dawned on me that deep down, it really made me feel good. Still, as noted, the best feeling is the awe in a young scouts voice when he looks at his first real starscape, or the pride in the boy that accomplishes a feat he has worked really hard to do. We all, I hope, keep the focus where it belongs most of the time; but we still enjoy the recognition. JMHO

GB: You might consider adding daddy long-legs to your list. They prey on other arachnids. Believe it or not, my understanding is that they are not actual spiders, but deadly cousins. They are not harmful to humans, other than scaring many half to death.

Cannot help but think part of the problem is we tend to have little faith in the big corporations being responsible; fear that they will cut corners for the sake of profit. Most environmental nightmares that are pointed to as evidence why we should not drill, or build nuclear plants were due to carelessness and cost cutting at the expense of tight safety procedures. If we could almost guarantee that all needed restrictions and fail-safe options were in place, we might find more receptive audiences. There is always risk; but doing it right, and taking precautions as necessary, will make it far less likely to cause problems. Nothing will ever be "absolutely" safe and fool-proof.

To me, this smells of PC influence in the background. Not that that could happen.

Sometimes it seems trivialities are more important than the reasons behind them. It could be clearer in many respects, but once read carefully, it is obvious BW is right (technically). Most boys will still call it a rank, as that is how they see it. And, in our council, we are supposed to file an advancement report to record it; so where does that leave us? It really does not matter that much in the long term. Some people's houses must be wall papered in red tape. That is their choice; let it go.

Interesting comment regarding positive actions towards others. One of the things that has always impressed me is the logic behind the wording of the Scout Law. It is a positive statement: "A Scout Is", not a scout does not. It assumes the best from the boy rather than dictates against something. Properly reinforced, this becomes a very good lever for responsible action and self pride. Hazing, as noted, is difficult to define; and what a small minority calls hazing, is often thought of as simply good fun amongst friends in many cases. Brings us back to making rational decisions based on valid concerns, rather than reaction to inuendo or hear-say. For example, most boys always enjoyed snipe hunts, and even the so called victims generally not only had fun, but look(ed) back on their first one with amusement and laughter. But, it was important that the leaders made it clear that a boy was not "forced" to participate. That is where the line may have been crossed in some cases. That is where the vigilance is so important; we need to let "boys be boys", so to speak. Yet we also need to be the silent guardians, ready to step in when necessary, either directly in a severe case, or by pulling boy leaders aside and doing a bit of counseling in regard to an observation. IMO, much of the apparent paralysis we are beginning to see in many youth when confronted with unfamiliar or discomforting situations is that we have skewed the natural learning curve of growing up. Just my thoughts at the moment.

Not sure why the physically able requirement should be an issue. The levels to be attained are not particularly high. The only ones that will be affected are those who are morbidly obese, or have other major issues. The upper plateus are fairly high it seems to me. Maybe I am missing something.

"Today it seems the OA has lost it's shine. I've had scouts called out and never bother to go to the Ordeal (adults, too). No one goes to chapter meetings, unless we call and remind them, AND pick them up. Lodge-wide, participation is low. 80% of the members are just "flap-wearers" and have no other participation." This has been tossed around in the OA section off and on. Over the years, as the mystery and more restrictive election qualifications have been eroded, the Order has become "common". Basically, become first class and have camping days and you have about a 95% chance of being elected unless the leader holds you out for some reason, or you have something going on at the troop level to keep you out. But, the idea that OA membership is special has been diluted to the point of being just another thing at a certain level. There will always be some who take the Order seriously, and work enthusiastically within their lodge and beyond. But, the specialness of it has, IMO, been watered down to the point of "ho-hum" for most who get elected; and the traditions have lost much of their luster. This has happened in many areas of the program, not just the OA. Hopefully, there will be another sea change that will shove it back to some degree towards the honorary and mystical. One can hope anyway.

Cannot help but be reminded of how much respect often is exhibited in scouting that is not in general society. Way back in 1979 I had a crew of 5 at Philmont (the era before 2 deep). It happened that there were a lot of extra hikers from outside the U.S. due to the cancellation of the World Jambo in Iran and the opening of Philmont to many of those groups. We ran into a full crew of scouts from South Africa (still Aparthide then)whose crew leader was black, but all the rest were white. The leader appeared to have the absolute complete respect of all the others. Said a lot to me, and impressed my crew as well, as they were old enough to understand the apparent anomoly.