skeptic

Merlyn; My point exactly. Thanks for the other link. While it is a fair discussion, I find it interesting that the few responses in the comments are not particularly supportive of the continued political attacks on BSA. And the last comment (currently) also takes Disney to task to some extent. " mootv20 hours ago It's good that big business is publicly affirming gay rights. A lot has been said about blue chips influencing Arizona's recent anti-gay brouhaha toward the right conclusion. This strategy is a plus for the cause and brandishes these business' images, but I don't find anything particularly courageous about Disney dumping the BSA. I'm an Eagle Scout. I am, like many current and former members of the Boy Scouts, embarrassed by its lumbering and short sighted policy vis-a-vis gay participation. But scouting also gave me a lot, and has benefited countless American men. Disney, a multi-zillion dollar for-profit company with a patchy record of their own, in a public dialogue they are rather late to, using the BSA (finances detailed above) as a convenient foil strikes me as the height of hypocrisy. Shape up, yes, BSA, but look to the mote in your own eye Disney. "

Oh come on Fred; that is just too much common sense. Funny thing, it seems to me that was pretty much the way it was until the Dale case got pushed into the political area and for some reason National felt the need to respond. If BSA is supposed to be apolitical, then it should be, period. CO's have always had the final say, and still do. The difference is only seen for the most part on the National level when the PC police latch onto something and push it into that arena. Have never understood the rationale behind these actions, other than politics and notoriety. They certainly do not have much concern for the damage they do in comparison to any improvement. The real irony, to me, is that the history of BSA shows them evolving to accommodate cultural and social issues over time. And I suspect this too would have worked its way through without all the drama if just allowed to do so. But, what do I know; I have only worked on the troop and district levels for the past 40 years or so?

While your point is valid to some extent, it is not our responsibility to monitor the access on the internet; that is their parents' responsibility. They do that by having proper protections and barriers in place on these devices. After all, we are not able to watch the scouts every second to see if they are doing something they should not. But, the easiest way to deal with it is to have the parental cooperation in the first place. That would include assuring the phones and such are not taken to camp, or are only available on the way to and from, or if you really want to be lenient, under direct supervision during a specified time. The rest of the time, any devices would be locked away under the adults in charge supervision for emergencies or agreed upon uses. Ultimately, parents need to decide what is best for their kid. If they cannot work with the unit rules, then they need to consider going elsewhere. I think you will find that the majority will welcome a bit of support in restricting the devices. Just my viewpoint of course.

Actually, I have never been to a scout camp where taps was later than 10PM. Now troop quiet time may be later for some; but not for us. We expect everyone to be quiet no later than 10:30, a half hour after taps. Usually do not have too much trouble anyway after the first night, as they are too tired to stay up.

Anybody try the proverbial 2 x 4, appropriately wielded?

Find it interesting that a discussion about Mike Rowe and Walmart should have suitable quotes for other categories on the forum. "We’ve become adept at putting people into boxes and assigning labels that reduce individuals to a single dimension. Thus, Democrats must behave like Democrats. Republicans like Republicans. It's expected. If you wander too far afield, you’re labelled a “sell-out.†A “Rino." A “Scab.†And so forth. " Politics, money, and power go hand in hand. And as noted already, this entire Gay focused issue is fully ensconced in those categories.

Oh, right, the article that embodies all that is wonderful about political journalism with this line "Rowe didn't immediately return a request for comment." . . . because the reporter never requested a comment from Rowe. In the interest of fairness, Mike Rowe's response from his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe) on Feb 24: And some of his logic on why he agreed to do voiceover work for WalMart, from Feb 12: Schiff; reread this from the long post prior, especially the part "We've become adept......" " People are asking how the “champion of the working man,†(their words, not mine,) can support a big company like Walmart? This goes straight to the heart of the problem. Because it’s a question designed to insight a fight. We’ve become adept at putting people into boxes and assigning labels that reduce individuals to a single dimension. Thus, Democrats must behave like Democrats. Republicans like Republicans. It's expected. If you wander too far afield, you’re labelled a “sell-out.†A “Rino." A “Scab.†And so forth. Consequently, if the “champion of the working man†fails to burst into a chorus of “Look For the Union Label,†the country is suddenly confused. They shouldn’t be. Because the truth is, I’m a big fan of the American Worker. I’m just a bigger fan of America."

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...fety/ahmr.aspx Have already reviewed the main part of this, and I find personally that this is a truly huge improvement. Am particularly glad they have gotten rid of the multi language form. Seems really clear overall to me; though we will still have people that just do not get it I am sure. But most should find this fairly clear I think.

Just out of curiosity, what is a birdhouse if it is not a sanctuary for the bird? Is not your house your sanctuary also? So I would say it works; but then I tend to shades of gray in my interpretations anyway. Just do not discourage the scout; that is the most important thing.

Companies that make these kinds of decisions are just as wrong as the groups they choose to not recognize may be. It is ALL money and politics. If a company has a program to match legitimate giving by their employees, then it should not be passing judgement on who the employees choose to aid. By doing so, they are being hypocrites. Granted, they have the right to control where their corporate dollars go in regard to charity; but if they have these matching dollar programs, they should not be tied to the corporate decisions, as they are singling out personal actions of their employees. If they feel they need to do that, then they simply should eliminate the entire matching program. But few companies have the courage to stand up to the power of the Gay lobbies. And when one does, they find themselves in the sights of media and a firestorm of negative press. BSA though needs to take the final step to allow leaders as well, as long as those leaders meet the conditions of the individual charter org. Then it is no longer a broad brush decision, but a local one. Of course that will still not satisfy the PC police that feel they have the right to tell people and private groups what they should believe and what they should do. The field of battle will simply be refocused I fear.

Will it work on self inflaters too?

Starting is in the $35K to $40K in our area; do not know if this is standard, but likely. If they hang on long enough, they get better, enough to survive with a small family in less expensive areas of the country. Been told the medical is exceptional, but someone else with actual experience would have to comment. No matter, DE is one of the least family friendly jobs you can imagine due to its hours and when those hours occur. Add in how many councils are constantly under the gun to stay in budgets, and the strain is huge. Have seen a number of young execs either quit to survive and have a life, or get divorced due to the stresses. Still, actually better than the very early days. Read the book Men of Schiff to get an idea of back then. Reality is that working in just about any youth serving position is not going to make you rich, and likely will only pay big in satisfaction when something really cool happens that makes it worthwhile. That goes for the volunteer side too of course; I mean the pay back for the time.

Still, most of us would agree that BSA's very top people are a bit overpaid, even on the council levels. When the top council exec makes anywhere from $150k to $350K, depending on its size, while most of the lower execs make average $50K-$70K, and the office workers are mostly minimum wage or slightly higher, they might consider some adjustments. With the retirement and health benefits in BSA, the top salaries are really high. To their credit, one of the reasons many lower level employees stay is because they too have access to better than average benefits. I live in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country, but most families still can live comfortably, if they watch their budgets, making $75K or more. Trouble is, that too many people think they should be able to live better than they need to. Guess growing up as the kid of depression parents and grandparents, I somehow learned that what you need and what you want are not the same things. Point is that National and local councils could function better with some salary adjustments, putting more into the program and less into professional personnel. Possibly National could take a bit off the top people's salaries to pass down to ease the stress on the lower level execs in council, especially ones that have high living costs and cannot hold onto people long enough to have them function well. We have not had enough execs for at least 15 years now, which puts undue strain on those we do have; and we could cut the top guy a bit, but our council is no where near the higher levels some are, even though it is expensive to live here. Will any of it happen; probably not. But, even if it did, there are some that simply hate National and Council because they are professionals and they are volunteers, so they would still not be happy. Personally, I feel we could function better if the old type commissioner staffs still worked. They don't though in most areas. Much of it has to do with time restraints on volunteers. But there is also a completely different viewpoint of cooperative efforts in the communities now. Far more people would rather throw money at something to NOT have to actually be involved, while too few still do most of the heavy lifting. My father told me once, years ago though, that even in the 50's nad 60's when I was a scout that only about 20% of parents did much, even to the extent of not having enough drivers at times. Try to keep that idea it is for "the youth" in the forefront, and just persevere if you can.

To round out the convo, what were the requirements at the time? Locate a fifties era handbook and take a look. My books were the one with an Indian rising from a fire, 1952-59 and the last Rockwell cover with the lanky scout walking with a camp in the background, 1959-63 or so. Some interesting ideas that are still useful today in those books. The first one actually was written in 1948, but they changed the cover in 1952 and made a few other internal changes.

In many ways, I can see a lot of benefit in the project; but there are also issues of concern in the prep and actual culmination of it. I would definitely like to see the paperwork simplified, ridding the candidate of about 75% of padding that usually serves little or no purpose. One page should easily allow a synopsis of a proposal. The list of materials, funding, and manpower should be as simple as possible also, with an option for clarification on the part of the board if needed. Actual working the project again only needs a very brief description, possibly even as picture captions in some cases. Included would be any notes regarding changes required and why, and possibly unusual leadership challenges. But that too should be as terse as possible. In many troops, the project is the greatest challenge the scout encounters, and how he handles it is very reflective of his character. I too did not have to do a project, and often wonder if I would have finished if I had been required to do so. Most likely I would have, but everything in advancement prior to that was far more challenging than what I see today, especially becoming a First Class, which generally met the title when completed. The higher ranks were mostly leadership and merit badges as they are today, with an emphasis on leadership. The required merit badges in the 50's and early 60's were similar, but the others, due to their categories, gave you a broader experience it seems to me looking back. We also had to have reference letters for advancement to Star and Life, as well as Eagle. And that meant the scout getting them from important individuals in the community and within their circle and family. My board was made up of those same type of individuals with only one actual registered scouter sitting on it. Seems to me there was a sheriff, the superintendent of Joshua Tree NM, a marine colonel, and a couple of others besides the troop or district rep. With that said, I would not get rid of it. But I would find a way to fix the bureaucratic overkill. I also would work to strengthen the lower rank requirements and how they are passed. The lower rank TLC sitting as a board would be reinstated, with just an adult overseer to protect against hazing or unfairness, but with no actual vote. That is one of the least wise decisions National has made in my opinion. Also, while actual complete retesting would not be allowed, some spot checking should be in my opinion. But, I am just one of the old guys living in another world sometimes.

Don't forget that the period of leadership only applies once for each rank, and there can be gaps. A life coming back after inactivity may very well have satisfied that requirement while still more active. If there is a need still, and the older scout is struggling to juggle sports, a job, family issues, school, then often the SM and SPL can come up with something that perhaps can be applied irregularly as the candidate is able and it is needed. Often, instructor is the catch all for such a position because it is pretty ambiguous and allows the SPL or other leadership to draw on them when they can. While it would be great if every older scout stayed committed at 80%+, they all may not be able to do so. If they are making an honest effort to balance it all, then we should be flexible enough to give them the opportunities available. On the other hand, somewhere we may on occasion HAVE to draw a line and counsel them as to where that line is.

If your son is willing to work it out, then you likely should let him. As a SM I have had a few similar instances where I discussed the thoroughness of a "signed" merit badge with a scout because it appeared to me that it was possibly not completely accomplished, even though it was signed. I did leave it to the scout to decide to fix the "questioned" part(s), or to accept the card as it was. It was ultimately "his" decision to make. But, at least he was aware that there was some concern over its level of proficiency. They all chose to review and improve the part(s) in question. Do not know if they were intimidated, though did not seem to be, or simply understood, or already knew, that they had not really "done their best". As I constantly opine; seldom is anything like this completely black and white. But discussing it with a scout is part of our job; and the scout doing the "right" thing is hopefully the result, as it makes him a better person and instills true pride in them for the final outcome.

I have voiced a similar frustration in trying to get them to plan "their" program. What do you want to do? No answer, or hike, camp, but not a word about where they might like to go or special themes. What about program in the troop meetings? Huh? You understand that these are NOT new scouts; so they have done stuff numerous times. As I have said before, it is as if they do not want to try for some reason, but prefer to simply be told. Is it because that is how they are now raised? Is it because not trying means not failing? I too sub, and I can feel for you. One of the reasons I now pretty much stay between 2nd and 5th if possible. They sometimes seem more willing to try; and of course I am still bigger than them. All we can do is keep pulling and pushing; and sometimes we actually see progress. I have an SPL right now that actually is starting to get it; and I am not as stressed at meetings recently. Still lots of room for improvement, but we are going the right direction anyway.

Hear, Hear!!!!

Once more we have those that simply cannot make a decision if there is any amount of gray in the discussion. Very few things in life are completely black or white. In this case, if I read it correctly, this scout was almost new and not from the unit directly affected by the tragedy. He came from the outside because most likely it was suggested he help by someone in his own unit, or a friend in the home unit. I would agree that a simple acknowledgement to the boy's unit is all that would be needed; then that unit can make the decision as they see fit. We should not confuse a good turn and service hours. Generally the definition of a good turn is to do something at the moment it appears to be needed, not a planned and scheduled event. Part of the problem IS that the terms often are mixed or joined, such as the "Good Turn to America", which in reality is not a good turn at all, but scheduled and planned service. Most real good turns take almost no time, and scouts probably do them without even realizing, such as the door opening or the "helping the old lady across the street" joke. Ultimately, it is a decision to be made at the unit level as to how you might address these things. We clean up camp sites when we leave, but that is not service hours, it is what we do in relation to Scouting and Leave No Trace. On the other hand, we have gone out on trail maintenance projects with the Forest Service or Trail Boss led events, and part of that is picking up litter. But, it is service hours as well for most of us. Half or more of the problems, subjects of confusion, and beating of chests pro or con on these forums are about things that simply require a bit of common sense and local, unit level decisions. Why can't we just do our jobs and make rational, and fair determinations? That is what leadership is.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-boy-scouts-judges-20140206,0,4158712.story#axzz2sgdUO049 If there actually was a conflict, why cannot they simply recuse themselves, or be asked to do so by others that see it as a problem? Not likely to be many cases in which this is a issue anyway.

This is the final nail Kudu; they even accommodate vehicles.

Why can't we simply continue with our program as it works and quit "looking" for problems. It unlikely this is really an issue with most units. It gets tiresome to see the continual bantering about what "might" be done wrong, or "might" go wrong, or "what" someone else is doing that someone thinks is wrong. Just run your program honestly and the best you can. If something unusual comes up, worry about it "then"!

Camping "does not" require backpacking, though backpacking counts towards the nights. The requirement is under canvas or the stars and doing the work and so on themselves. So cabins or similar shelters are not allowed, but a campout on the church lawn with tents could. Only one summer camp can be counted in full as long as it is in tents and not cabins. As far as rubbing some the wrong way, that is your opportunity to encourage scout spirit and so on. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and what others do or don't do is not important to their pride in their own accomplishments. It does appear you may have some work to do with the young man though in relation to leadership. Good luck.

The thing about it reverting to the council is crazy too, as most councils have NO use for a troops "stuff" if they fold. It just gets put in an obscure location should they actually have it brought to them (they are not likely to go get it), or they put it in an auction, throw or give it away, depending on what it is. They ARE interested in any money though should it be available.