skeptic

How about we simply ask all members to vouch that they are not the center of the universe and that "something" greater and better than themselves may exist, whether they call it God, god, or something? I am sure that would still find someone that thinks it is treading on their rights or personal space. How broad do we have to go before we might reach "almost" consensus? Obviously, total agreement is beyond our small capabilities.

I am surprised that someone has not started complaining about Pedro anyway, since he is, after all, most likely a Democrat.😁

I fail to understand the issue related to the knot. One knot, and if asked, the recipient can say he was recognized in more than one district at different times. There should be no reason to have to further indicate to others, as those that are friends and scouting colleagues know anyway. We make way too much of these things. Afterall, the program should be focused on the youth. If adults are "seeking" personal recognition, then they may need to evaluate their involvement. Just MHO of course.

One of the frustrating issues I have had over the past five years or so of participation in this forum is that so often we want to immediately focus on the negatives that may or may not exist. Is that necessarily the best way to respond? If a play does not work in organized sports, do you simply say it is hopeless, or do you find a variant or completely new option? Most barriers are surmountable, though many may be better if gone around. The point is to score. In our case, the ultimate goal is to offer the best elements of Scouting to the greatest amount of youth that we can. There is a reason that there is the annoying, but in a way complementary, slur; "oh you are such a Boy Scout" or other similar variants of this. Scouting, at its best, makes society and those of us within it better. So why not look at the challenges we are given as that, challenges, rather than immediately finding reasons it cannot work. My grandfather used to say to me fairly often, "Can't never could do anything!". Think about it before you jump to the worst scenarios. The positive is still there, but we may need to find alternate routes.

It is odd how living in the most populated state we are not having "so many pissed off people". Wonder what the concern is, other than not being really involved nor understanding the overall picture. If anything, we have had mostly positive responses, even from many who were Girl Scouts. A few overly sensitive or prone to hyperbole individuals make noise, and somehow it is immediately taken by many to be the end of the world, or at least the beginning. Those actually directly involved NOW are either very gung-ho to move forward, or at least willing to work to smooth out the rough spots and offer the program to a broader group of youth. 🙄

Perhaps you might simply choose to delete it, rather than pass it on. It has little to do with our subject, other than indicating the individual's skewed perspectives.

Do not understand your reasoning. The overall name remains Boy Scouts of America, and they will still be scouts. Way too much unneeded concerns and over reacting to this whole thing. Just work the program for all the youth involved. Who cares it they are called scouts or boy scouts? Call them boy scouts if that fits them and makes you comfortable.

And I thought I had too much time on my hands. Some on here need to simply go back and review the foundational elements of the program, starting with the connection to Baden Powell. If you can lay your hands on a copy, get the book Personally Speaking which is a collection of editorial comments from the past editor of Scouting, Lex Lucas, that was published after his retirement in 1965. A number of the entries seem tailor-made for this hyper "sky is falling" crowd.

Russian trolls are responsible.

I would like to thank the bearded (?; in our council many are hirsute.) sages of Scouting that have given serious responses. I find the ones that suggest the boys finding subjects, the related readings idea, and the important point of keeping any such activity short and connected to moe hands on.

The thought was that we would over time read the entire book, sort of like going through the Bible book by book. Certainly, in relation to a specific subject, it might not be a bad idea to preface a work on session with doing a reading from the handbook.

Yep, you are right. The comments are pretty reflective of our continually out of touch and unaware public. They have no idea, for the most part, how either group works in this country, or how we compare to the greater world experience. And, since so many of the concerned citizenry also would like us to divorce the entire country from the greater world theater, why would they not comprehend this? Way too many people with tunnel vision and complete ignorance of anything beyond the ends of their noses. JMHO of course. Meanwhile, hurray, and may the trend continue to build. Again JMHO.

This past weekend, discussing an upcoming planning session with the SPL, I dropped the idea of a small period fairly often of simply reading aloud a section from the Handbook. His response was far more positive than I expected. Matter of fact, he felt it might be a really good regular thing and beneficial in a number of ways. Any thoughts from this erudite group?

In regard to the lost items, it is common now for the leader with the item in question to simply ask about it and tell the owner to come after the assemble to claim it. That then puts the onus on the owner if they choose to claim it right then, or a leader of the unit in which the owner participates will come and get it and then later return it (?). I tend to agree that we have leaned way too far to the other side with these things. Fortunately, in spite of our seemingly constant over the top responses to things once simply part of life, we still have kids come out on the sunny side more often than some might expect. This too is a coping experience, sometimes for we old people.

Interesting opinion. Are you aware that there were a number of medals and other special uniform awards for War Service during both World Wars? What difference is it, really. Someone, adult or scout, sold X dollars of stamps or bonds and got such and such award, the larger ones that could be worn. There has never been a knot to recognize those, but they certainly were worn proudly. There also were medals for waste collection, War gardens, Civil Service and locally, probably others. Also, in relation to the West Knot, it is often given to someone in honor of their service by others or in honor of someone in the family or group. I was presented with two in honor of two past scouts that were killed as young adults, both for whom I was SM. I received a third one from a retired Scouter friend for my seniority in our council and our work together. He was recognizing many of his Scouter friends with them in his retirement, probably gave at least 8 to 12 before he passed away with his own 50 plus years. I wear one knot, and I know what the honor is that is attached, two Eagle Scouts and a fine dedicated Scouter friend who gave to Scouting as his own family. I admit though that initially when the first one was given to me, I did not wear it, as I had not been the one to give the dollars and I felt as if I was being a bit dishonest. It was pointed out to me that I was not honoring the memorial of the Eagles by not wearing it, and so I do. I suppose that since then I may have earned my own dollar version with donations to the local camp fund, but that does not matter.

But, if you try to find Eagles from the time before computers, and they did not get transcribed from defunct council records, do not count on National to be much help. Trying to see old paper records requires knowing the ghosts of James West or other founders.

It now occurs to me that I noted while doing research on my own unit for "lost" Eagles that we had a number of long time senior scouts with possibly the needed requirements, but who were not on any list from the period. Two or three were carried on our charter throughout WWII, listed as "In Service" or similar wording. Wonder if any of their records should be reexamined; though they are all gone now as far as I know.

It occurred to me today that our aberrant pols seem involved in an ongoing game of "Win All You Can". Valid?

This appears to be more an attempt to make more out of it than need be done. Yes, when the change in employment or title happened they should have been more conscious of the appearance of support. But, it was not their intent; more simply poor decision making by people that may not be cognizant of the residual appearance and the wording of the law. Why so many in our modern society need to constantly make waves over minor issues is beyond me, other than their own desire to somehow be noticed and project power in some manner. Another facet of the egoism that is more and more dominating our society.

A little off the OP's posting, but interesting from a historical viewpoint. I found this shooting target in my troop's archives from when they were also an NRA junior club during WWII.

At least far too many so called star of sports and the entertainment industry, as well as, unfortunately, many pols in positions of power.

It is interesting and disheartening that all of these stats are similarly seen in the downward trends in organized religious groups, especially the oldest ones, and within community-based service groups such as Elks, Lions and so on. There is very likely a connection reflective of societal malaise in general.

I cannot find the edit function on the post. Perhaps one of the mods can delete it? I overlooked the comma anyway which specifies People as opposed to the militia. So the people are not regulated in the amendment. If someone will point me to an edit function, I can take care of it too. Thanks.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Ahhh. This is what I see being pretty much ignored in most conversations. Does not "well-regulated mean that controls of some form, such as laws and such, are part of the right noted?