skeptic

Until we see the actual final (?) wording we likely should not read too much into it. My perception is simply that they are trying to strengthen the spiritual element of the program that has always been there, but in many groups is pretty much ignored or an afterthought. It is a fine line, but the fact is that "some form" of spirituality is part and parcel of Scouting, and has always been so. I know there are some that feel it should not be, but if they believe that, then we are back to "why" are they in the program? There are many other options for similar overall activities that do not include the spiritual element. Many of the problems that seem to arise within this forum, and elsewhere seem to be caused by individuals either not understanding the foundational blocks of the program, or choosing to ignore them completely. Also often looks as if a certain amount of either fear or lack of self confidence pushes "leaders" to abdicate certain parts of the program as too hard or someone else's responsibility. The fact that individual units are given so much latitude scares some; they need exact detailed guidelines, or it is not possible. The idea that "failure is not an option" enters into the mix to some extent too, even though overcoming obstacles is part of the growth of the participants on all levels. Subjectiveness also tends to stymie some when it comes to the interpretation of the Oath and Law. But it is that very subjectiveness that allows the separate unit to function within itself to best serve itself and the CO's purpose. Meanwhile, those of us that actually continue to work within the units and districts need to simply focus on giving the youth the best program we can within the guidelines we have without undermining the foundation of the Oath and Law. Most importantly, lets try to keep the politics and related hype out of the mix.

The info is taken directly from the most current Eagles' Call, the NESA quarterly magazine. You can find it under NESA on the National site, but the 2014 issues are not yet archived, and they do not appear to have recent or the current one on the site. If you are not an Eagle, or a member of NESA, you still can subscribe it seems. The magazine has improved dramatically in the past couple of years. At one time it was more or less a newsletter.

While nothing on the level of Cubbing or Ventures, it appears there are some significant changes according to a summary in the latest NESA Eagles' Call. "Tweaks to the requirements will add emphasis on physical fitness, healthy living, outdoor ethics, and weather safety. Community service will be required for each rank (with a conservation project required for Life), and duty to God will be incorporated into the requirement to show Scout Spirit. 'Scout' will also become officially a rank, rather than simply a joining badge. Specifics will be announced at the 2015 annual meeting, and most will take effect January 1, 2016. So, mostly positive from a general view, but surely we will see some good discussions going forward, and of course a few doom predictors and such. Suspect the Scout Spirit change will be a clarion call for some "the sky is falling" group. And some will have problems for some reason with emphasis on service and more physical fitness, though why I have no idea. The Scout change is basically nothing more than a fix-it thing.

Those that refuse to face the future, will simply recede into the past. STEM has parts that can take the scouts outdoors. Science is still based on nature and its myriad natural functions, many of which can only be truly experienced in the field. Instead of constantly crying how "outing" is being taken out of scouting, try announcing how STEM is being taken along with "outing", and moving forward. There is really no reason for all the "chicken little" blather, except that some REFUSE to see that half full glass, but focus instead on it being half empty. Go out and find minerals and field test them for identity. Go out on flower hikes and use modern technology to help determine their variation and so on. Go on an animal hike and snap photos of them in their natural habitats and take pics of footprints and so on. Go on a landform hike and identify them in their natural state. Then take the raw data back to the STEM labs and improve the overall knowledge. Or, get the lab rats to build you a retro time machine and go back and live in the past where everything was so much simpler.

Calico pretty much covered it. There is a Little Scouts hard back with jacket from 1944 made up of the original magazine work. It shows up fairly often on eBay. The actual comic books also show up, but not nearly as often. Great fun though.

At least you did not sing "the bear song" then.

This is exactly what was bound to happen when the files were thrown open to everybody. This legal group is nothing more than a predator itself, preying on "possible" victims dredged out of the documents. Throw a wide enough net, and you will catch something. It does not matter to them that the organization did a far better job than most back then. The BSA is simply seen as a deep pocket target.

You also had at least two other Boy Scout groups at that time, including one that was very militarily slanted.

Part of being a leader and counselor is to be aware of special issues and needs. Obviously, if the scout or parent is not forthcoming, problems can arise. A frank discussion with the boy's leader and parents on how to deal with the challenges is the proper route. But, there are unfortuneately people that simply think legal bullying is the only good response, and that everyone should simply know their child is "special". The worst part of these cases is that the child generally never learns to properly cope and then becomes a severely challenged adult in time. But, volunteers are not required to be phycologists or counselors for severe emotional and physical disorders. And, it is unfair to expect otherwise, especially if the family does not make it known directly. Hopefully the COR and council will back the leaders should it go too far.

How long until our favorite "no BSA in schools" chimes in??

Does anyone know where we would go to fix discrepancies in training reports. If you look at my training report from the link on MyScouting it shows almost everything, other than Philmont courses. The early leader courses, which were taken ions back show on this report, but with a 1911 date; that seems to be the dates for earlier training in positions. But, on the Dashboard training lists, I am noted as still needing a bunch of training, even though it is shown in the noted report. How do we fix this?

But, there is no law against the holder supporting your particular group.

Actually, no watch can be guaranteed waterproof, and the terminology is no longer legally used in the U.S. and most other countries. It is pressure tested only, and is resistent to that depth as long as all the seals are in good condition and no cracks in the crystal. Years ago, about 1973, I was a trainee for Zales in Riverside, the county with the Salton Sea in it. We had a customer return a watch because he said it leaked while he was fishing on the Salton Sea. But the watch only had the mimimum pressure test of 3 atm, and the Salton Sea is well below sea level. So, it leaked. We did refund it, but explained he needed a better tested watch should he plan on going there again. While in the industry, had number of times where people could not understand why their watch leaked when they pulled a stem under water, or pushed buttons that were not meant to be used under water. Also had instances of condensation when people left them on dashes or hot seats. Interesting to me, but probably too much useless info.

Gee, wonder if I can get one directly from California DMV; or is that another area of the PC pols here?

So, are the scouts going to be billed for the cost of the investigations? While there is always room for doubt, it certainly does not weigh well on the side of the scout group based on the info we have been given. The real issue of course is the actual "accuser(s) not being allowed to be interviewed. Goes to show how easily things can get grown way out of proportion as to what may have actually occurred. Simply seems a poor reflection on this particular group, at least to me.

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/15/texas-gov-rick-perry-indicted-for-coercion-for-veto-threat/20947859/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D516226

:rolleyes: sigh :rolleyes:

Stosh. They specifically note that the hats were found at a very good price through a friendly supplier, and they have to be First Class to wear them. Secondly, the flag you seem to be referring to is the original Navy Jack, and a historical flag. This photo has a number of flags, some of which may very well be other historical flags. Using historical flags is not defamation of the standard. Would it be better if they all were in perfect uniform, including pants? Maybe, but certainly better neat and clean than full uniforms that look like they were slept in and with neckerchiefs improperly rolled and crooked. Uniforming is a method; it is NOT, nor ever has been, required.

Help, police:mad: http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/08/08/troop-501/

Love the emblem; should make it into a full sized t-shirt design too. Learned long ago to be careful what you say, especially to an adolescent. Was at a camp one summer, and I kept seeing the infamous Tote-n-Chit patch on the OA designated pocket. When I saw it on an older scout one day, who was wearing a Star patch and an arrow dangle, I asked him (I guess sarcastically looking back, though thought it was tongue in cheek) where the lodge was located. He of course gave me the blank look, so when I explained the error, he informed me that is where his leader told him to put it and so it was staying there. After suggesting he review the insignia guide, I wished him well and forgot about it. That evening, a very red faced leader from the boy's unit found me at dinner and lambasted me about it. So, I have tried to not be even jokingly a UP except in my own unit. But, as noted, some things you may occasionally look past. In 1985, I put my 1960 Jambo patch next to the 1985 patch when I was a leader. Only had one comment, other than that is cool the entire time at jambo. Also have my two mentor pins on my left pocket flap; it is an honor. Not sure if I had more if I would keep them there though.

Anybody else note that as soon as this sad event became pretty much a non Scout "blame game" the media dropped it? Does not surprise me, but certainly shows again their bias. At least that is how I see it.

If you look at the larger version by clicking original it appears they added some form of platform in front for the first row to sit on. The boy on the left of the photo seems to have a second class pin on his hat, though it could be first class with the top faded into the photo. The one on the far right does look as if he is in the early style uniform. But, this being an obviously posed photo, the group probably tried to look as good as they could, and most probably had little if any uniform parts. Early photos in my collection gleaned from 15 years searching the web seem to mostly have boys with a neckerchief, a hat, a shirt, then maybe pants with lace sides; and pretty much in that order. The leg wear in the photo is fairly common in those from that era, whether a scout group or simply boys. I find it fun that they all have ties on except the two in obvious uniform who neither have neckerchiefs. Those of us that have the historical interest beyond the superficial likely could spend a lot of time discussing old photos if we were together. We would try to identify units if not obvious like this one, and look for sleeve insignia. It is too bad so many of the photos are faded and small; but they continue to be fascinating to me.

None; the uniform is only a tool and NOT required. Never has been. Of course KDD is just making fun:rolleyes: