skeptic

WAKWIB; I think the comments made in the very conservative and anti Gay group are slanted and likely questionable in their suggestions of issues. They are simply alarmist in order to scare some people and maybe a church a sponsor or two. Possibly some of the actual legal experts might weigh in; but it seems to me these are not reflective of the average run of the mill scouters or their sponsors. JMO of course.

NO; absolutely not.

It is highly likely that most youth under 14 or so really do not have a clue about what they really are. They go with what their parents tell them, or what they see as the cool thing to be, or something to that effect. Yes, a few may have actually began to postulate their eventual "adult" belief structure; but for the most part, they are not yet really very rational about it.

While patriotism is often over done and even flaunted by some, there is nothing wrong with using the generic term American. If, for some reason that really is bothersome, then just put whatever you want there; but try and be civil. Geeeez!

Probably will hear about it soon. It just occurred recently and found out it was approved just last week. The goal was specific; to be the youngest ever. Soooo.

As has recently occurred in our council, a parent has worked the system through legal technicalities, threats, and troop and district changing until he got what he wanted, his eleven year old passed through. And, of course, even though he passed, the whole thing has simply left an acid pall over the proceedings. The boy has a lot of potential, and hopefully may yet prove himself; but I have a feeling even he realizes he really should not have passed; but he is too young to stand up to the parental intrigue. Bad example for the boy, and even a worse example for those that know him. It started in cubs where he somehow "earned" every loop and pin available, even though none of the other boys even knew the opportunity was being offered for many of them, and they were last minute by the, you guessed it, parental "leader". Moved into a troop at the absolute minimum age, then transferred soon afterwards when the leadership said he had not satisfactorily met certain requirements and that the "parent was not authorized to sign off stuff like in cubs". Buffaloed the new unit for a few months, then it again hit the fan, eventually resulting in parental legal threats and moving to another unit in a neighboring district. Again worked the system and got a board. Current unit had developed huge concerns, but nobody was willing to stand up to the realities of what went on and force a final challenge at National. Do not make waves is the norm once these things reach a certain stage. The really sad thing is that the boy himself likely would have made it on his own and actually felt good about it; but you can tell he is embarrassed when confronted by those that tried to challenge him early on to "earn" rather than just get blanks signed and then forget, and to prove himself with his peers. Now he has little or no respect even from them. Still, he could grow into it, assuming he stays around long enough with his current peer level issues and the bad feelings generated on the adult level, he will have learned a really good life lesson. Of course, he will have to be able to confront the poor parental example to succeed. One can hope.

Multiple generally refers to either a youth in two types of units, say Venturing and Scouts, or to adults that are registered with the district or council in other positions that require separate applications. They are so only one place gets the money, usually the dominant unit or position.

Not sure where you would get the idea there is no standard. That is pretty much what the Uniform and Insignia Guide is all about I think. It is on line, so you do not have to have a hard copy.

Some people simply do not handle any changes well. For some reason it is always the end of the world. Just ignore. It should have never been removed in the first place IMO.

Just curious if many think this type of thing is really something any state legislative body should be doing, especially with the myriad other concerns for which they seldom find time? I do not disagree we need to be aware of this, but do we really need it in a resolution? Seems to me simply another example of politicizing an issue rather than actually dealing with it. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140HR23

CAVE PEOPLE They sit or stand, silhouettes within a campfire cave. Unintelligible, animated voices echo, punctuated by laughter, hissing sap, the sudden popping of burning logs. 9-12-03

I think a couple of things. First, these lawyers are simply money grubbers. Look at their web site and tell me they are not, remembering that they get a huge portion of any judgment. They are no better than the people allowed to advertise now on TV looking for someone, anyone who may have had ill effects from drugs, or been in an accident, and so on. They are taking things decades old and beating the bushes until they find someone to cooperate with them because they think they will get rich. Read the actual info on the Ineligible Volunteer files that has been posted, especially the details of those in the sampling done in the research. A majority WERE brought to the authorities, and many were prosecuted; we really do not know how many were specifically not due to lack of concrete evidence, parental choice, or simply the era they were in. And the files DID keep some out by being there, even in the age before computers. It continues to astonish me how people cannot understand that much of the problem with these suits is that the occurrences happened decades ago when the general public and community responses were completely different. It was also before EASY cross referencing by computer, so it had to be done by phone or mail. Of course today, almost any REAL evidence or actual witnesses are gone in most of the cases being DUG out of these files by the ambulance chaser lawyers. Take these facts and add to them the current antipathy by many against the BSA in general, along with the way the media skews everything, and these guys see slam dunks. Does anybody remember the earlier "sexual predator" witch hunts that ruined peoples' lives when most were finally exonerated too late? As some have pointed out, these same people, if they were really trying to help people, would be digging in the far richer fields of schools and youth sports. But, they do not have the same media antipathy or the files that were kept in an attempt to actually keep some of this from occurring. But, as I have often said of late; common sense and actual reason are not generally seen in today's society.

Owning one may only mean there is one in the house; maybe left there by previous generations. Like any book, it is almost useless unless actually read, other than for a door-stop or some such thing.

Tico lives in Florida and is not a professional.

The idea that council or higher can ban dues from units is preposterous. Each unit is owned by its CO; and they set the rules regarding how the unit is funded. If there are actually any local councils that think they can do it, they are simply mistaken, and have no right to do so. If any executive here tried that they would be out on their ear..

Interesting responses, though some are a bit disappointing. While it is obvious that there are those that do not hold the rank in any real esteem, and that was a given, a few of the comments have indicated a disdain that is somewhat over the line, or so it seems to me. The more thoughtful are more to the real point. The reason I noted initially that I was not sure where this belonged was because the majority of these "Eagles" are those some still hold up as good examples who are in the middle our political morass. They are the ones that I certainly DO NOT hold up as good examples to scouts. But, reality is that being a "Boy Scout", whether Eagle, or simply a member, is construed as being weak and ineffective and often used as a put down. The simple idea of actually living up to the basic tenets of the Oath and Law is somehow simplistic and shows a naivete that is to be made fun of. But, of course, we still have those like Mike Rowe or the majority of the Eagle astronauts. Just wish those in the various levels of government would try to simply "Live the Twelve", and remember that duty to self is preceded by duty to God and country and duty to others when discussing the meaning of the scout emblem.

Not sure which place to put this; maybe it belongs in the more controversial forum. Thinking about how often we discuss the "honor" and "respect" Eagle Scouts so often are shown, and how they are such great positive role models in our society. And, this is primarily very true. But, I am finding myself more and more challenged to accept certain Eagles as particularly good examples to scouts or society. What is particularly embarrassing to me are the great many that now populate our government at high levels, both on the national and state levels. It seems to me that the majority of these individuals have forgotten the simple precepts of the Scout Oath and Law. Certainly few are adhering very well to them, based on their lack of simply doing the jobs for which they were elected. Some have come out with positions and statements that blatantly slap the ideals of Scouting directly across the face. Of course there are similar examples in other areas of our society; but the worst, and most egregious to me are the ones getting overpaid by us to run our country, states, and communities, yet do nothing but spar and barter for money and power for themselves and their immediate "connections". Maybe these are the Eagles that should be returning their medals, since they seem to have forgotten what it still represents, in spite of their actions.

Here is an Opinion piece from the L.A. Times back in April regarding this bill. It does a pretty good job of noting the problems beyond Scouting, though it is still obviously biased against BSA. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/12/opinion/la-ed-boy-scouts-20130412 What is really troublesome for me is that somehow we seem to think it is okay for our so called representatives to propose legislation that is punitive and a personal vendetta. If you look at the original sponsors, they are all anti BSA, and have even admitted the bill is specifically aimed at BSA. This is likely unconstitutional I would think. But, even if not, it is really bad representation.

Yep, it does remind of Ed and M. Is it time for that "pie" we used to speak about? Or would it just get thrown in faces?

Thanks for not calling me a "liar" too.

Moose'; You do realize don't you that no matter what you say, it will not appease him? If he disagrees with something, and another suggests that there is room for the awful "compromise", he starts shouting somehow that is making atheists (him) a second class citizen or something similar. Reality is that he is only made one if he allows it to be so; it is a personal problem, and none of us will solve it or his insecurity. JMHO of course.

The old furry beast has stuck his snout into the boards again. Good to see you Beavah.

An interesting piece from across the pond, guaranteed to stir the pot. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/

It is interesting the stories some post here, and the ones so far gotten from leaders and scouts just returned. Most of those with whom I have spoken have mostly positive comments, though they do note there were short comings in some areas. Still, it "seems" that the overall feedback I have gotten is no where nearly as awful as a few here seem to state. But, there are various levels and types of response to disappointment and discomfort by individuals. Maybe those I have met just have more flexible and positive attitudes and can look at difficulties and less than perfect experiences as opportunities for improvement going forward, rather than an excuse to complain and throw rocks. Just a thought and observation.

Thanks JoeBob; the positive always outweighs the negative.