skeptic

I came to this thread hoping to find new recipes for dutch oven brats, special to scouting activities. Why would I ever think a Scout could be impolite or worse?

While it may not be worth the fight, schools MUST give equal access to facility use, including BSA. That issue hit the courts a number of years ago. But they put you in an awkward position when you challenge them and then they ban all groups equally. Of course, we also have administrators that make their own rules for "their" school; and they generally are not challenged, even when maybe it should be.

This short thread is a microcosm of what we see on the net, especially FB and uncontrolled boards. Something is upsetting, annoying, or simply disagreeable to someone and they post their comments, but generally out of context, and often without the link to the source. Various friends and acquaintences see the post and jump to their own conclusions, again without context. If the post does contain a link, many will not read that, so they still do not have the more complete picture. Finally, few will pursue the background and possible responses to those nearest, but rather simply paint the institution or group with that wonderful broad condemnation brush. Meanwhile the really ignorant post derogatory and vicious comments, often somehow making their personal scape goat somehow responsible. In this case, I posted almost immediately a link to the greater student group leadership and the school, and their response. But few bothered to take note until it finally showed up on the net. But even then, some of the "news" links skewed it to their own purposes. And too many sheep simply follow along, eventually evolving to lemmings. And we all know what their final act may be.

In reality not a popular opinion there. If you read the FB posts, most students are appalled. And the greater student government group is voting to likely veto the thing. http://news.uci.edu/briefs/campus-statement-on-flying-the-american-flag/

While I will admit we have a big share of the kooks in the world, I think you may be painting with a bit too broad a brush. If you throw out the Bay area, and parts of L.A. you will likely find people remarkably "normal".

How many are you getting?

These misguided individuals are being brought up short by their peers. The larger student organization has brought it up for official veto. It appears that actually will be the case by tomorrow. Still, it certainly makes you wonder about their reasoning abilities.

Think the photo to which I referred earlier may have been from last year, as they posted some from previous years too on the Report items on FB and in Scouting. Just went through the whole six days now posted, and there are none with Mr. Obama that I noted.

There is at least one photo that appears to have the President in it; but where I cannot tell.

Most boys NOT in cubs join because someone, already a scout, talks about how much FUN they had at such and such. The uniform is secondary in that regard; it was the activity itself that brought interest and a "can I come next time" response. In our local county paper today is an article about the annual Scouting for Food, and it includes a couple of photos. They look like scouts very often do, especially when actually doing physical stuff, but also when just doing. http://venturacountystar.ca.newsmemory.com/?token=64115810c31f66fa3996f1505a48e59a_54f896dd_fdf02f Trouble is how hard it is go get these kind of things even in the paper, especially the ones that are primary in an area.

Not sure how this has anything to do with Scouting, or Cubs. Guess I should remember to read the actual link too; then I would not ask dumb questions as often.

This kind of thing is why simply doing "the right thing" isn't an adequate basis for making political decisions for big jurisdictions. So, you genuinely believe this? If a majority of the populace truly think this, then we now know what the problem is. Politics SHOULD NOT BE above common courtesy or common sense. Just because some think so, does not make it okay. Then, I simply am an old guy that is expecting too much of my representatives, and possibly of the younger generations.

Still have a pair of the red piped pants in the closet, but they shrunk while hanging there, so now I can only hope they can be restretched. Or, I guess I could make more effort to accomodate their issues. Still have a couple of the old lightweight seventies shirts I wear occasionally. Also have a number of shirt cousins of the red piped pants that have the same odd problem.

If you cannot see the difference between governing the country and governing yourself, then I simply have no hope. Those elected to be our representatives have an obligation to be the best individuals they can. And the simple tenets of Scouting, whether here or elsewhere are sound foundations on which to build. If we quit making excuses for ignorance, greed, power panderin, and the other vices in Pandora's infamous box, we then at least might move two steps forward for each backward, rather than the other way around. It is interesting to me that our only Eagle Scout president, who was really appointed, rather than elected, had the courage to do what he thought right, even though he surely knew it would certainly doom his reelection. Yet looking back, most will acknowledge that his pardon of Nixon likely made our government more stable at the time, and certainly averted even darker days of political turmoil. I suppose I am simply too simplistic in my expectations and should join the famous Don in jousting.

"So count yourself lucky --- and cross your fingers that this generosity towards political opponents by both parties continues." Huh? Since when?

At least in regard to the Presidential election, the best answer to the electora college would seem to simply be to give the electoral votes in proportion to the actual votes, rather than winner take all. That has never made any sense to me. But, politics and politicians have seldom made much sense either.

bp, (lower case used purposely) the facts are that there are far more high adventure activities done by scouts across the country than there were in years past, especially if you use percentages rather than actual numbers. We DO NOT live in the hay day of Scouting when it had no competition to speak of, and when it was really simple to go camping nearby. But, while there are units that do not give proper attention to the outdoor program, even some of those, when they do, camp at a higher level of adventure than many did years past. IF, a scout actually is given Eagle without camping, then there is a major problem in that unit and council; but I suspect that is just one of the many exagerated claims coming from the "sky is falling" crowd. No one can fix your obviously distasteful and difficult issues with Scouting in the past. But, it is true that your posts lean very much to the negative; and even when you have a positive comment, you tend to nullify it with more negative. None of us that have our eyes and ears working do not see there are issues that need solutions in our programs and especially in certain aspects of National. But, many of the newer subjects and vocations being offered offer new perspectives and even opportunities in the outdoors. Incorporating science directly with outdoor excursions, whether hikes, camping, or on site investigations of nature is a huge step forward. Finding ways to challenge boys in today's world is a real challenge, especially if you hope to link it to the ourdoors in some manner; but it can and is being done. Can it be improved upon? Always. There have always been troops that did not meet the muster so to speak in the eyes of many leaders, and even fellow scouts. But, in a world overcrowded with choices for youth and adults alike, Scouting still is a premier program, even with its numerous drawbacks and challenges that are the result of the 21st century and a changed society. Just the way I see it. But I am still a skeptic, especially when it comes to "throwing out the baby with water".

The Scout Oath and Scout law are not the basis for governing the United States. It is not suggested to be the governing directive; it suggested that those that work, or claim to work, in our representative government remember the basic tenets of the Oath and Law in how they do that work. You know, try and actually simply be "Trustworthy", and to have the "Courage" to stand against the party when you really know they are misguided, or be courteous to the opposition even if you do not like them or agree with them, especially if they are in what is generally seen as a position of respect, like President or head of the Senate or House, and stuff like that.

According to the National Council of BSA, one hundred and ninety-one members of the 113th Congress have participated in Scouting, either as a boy, an adult, or both. Thirty of those are Eagles as well. Below is a list of the individuals who are Eagles. My challenge to these individuals, especially the Eagles, would be for them to take a serious self-evaluation and consider whether they are truly living up to the tenets of the Scout Oath and Law. My personal perception is that the answer is mostly NO; but that is simply my opinion. And that applies to almost the entire membership of our Congress, as well as the Executive and Judicial branches too. Unfortunately, I do not see these comments, if they were even seen by the group, will have much effect. But, if even a small percentage takes it into consideration, it would be a plus. In the 113th Congress (2013-15) there are 11 Eagle Scouts, (comprising about 14% of the male Senate membership). 6 are Republicans; 5 democrats. They are: Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Mike Crapo (R-ID) Mike Enzi (R-WY) Mike Lee (R-UT) Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Ben Nelson (D-NE) Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Pat Toomey (R-PA) Also are 19 Eagles in the House currently; 15 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Representative John Garamendi (D); CA Representative Dana Rohrabacher ®: CA Representative Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D); GA Representative Gary Charles Peters (D); MI Representative Sam Graves ®; MO Representative Christopher H. Smith ®; NJ Representative Chris Collins ®; NY Representative Steve Stivers ®; OH Representative Jim Bridenstine ®; OK Representative Greg Walden ®; OR Representative Lou Barletta ®; PA Representative Mike G. Fitzpatrick ®; PA Representative Glenn W. "GT" Thompson ®; PA Representative Jim Cooper (D); TN Representative Phil Roe, M.D. ®; TN Representative Louie Gohmert ®; TX Representative Jeb Hensarling ®; TX Representative Pete Sessions ®; TX Representative David B. McKinley ®; WV

Is it worth the effort? Yes!!

Yes, negative press stays in ppl's heads longer than the positive stuff. It does not help that the negative is almost always publicized by most papers and such, but you have to lean over backwards to get anything positive beyoned a paragraph or line buried in a community activity page with dozens of other similar ones. Reality says few people see those things, especially in our too fast world where if people even look at a paper, they simply scan it.

(The only people living on the Pacific Plate are in Hawaii and other islands.) Actually, not true. The San Andreus fault is the break of the North American plate as the Pacific pushed under. So there is a piece of the Continental plate that is riding on the ocean side of the break on top of the Pacific plate, slowly sliding northward an inch or so a year. So, technically, that part of California fell into the Pacific long ago and over time we never will see will be neighbors with Canada. On the other hand, since the piece is on top of the Pacific plate, I guess you could be right too, as those living there are not actually on the Pacific plate, but still on the broken piece of the continental one. Whatever, believe it or not, most of us in California are not completely wacko; but those that are cannot not easily be missed or ignored.

We can let the craziest of us here fall into the ocean, instead of continuing to ride the Pacific plate like they do now.

Probably Pack. Guess most scouters would be only required to do the first two, as they likely lived there a while. Still, one more cost to absorb which will put a damper on some volunteers, whether in scouts or otherwise. Be interesting to see how they would even police such a thing though; would almost need to be voluntary in many instances. Scouts of course are supposed to have registered leaders, so I guess they would be easier to check on.