skeptic

Have been trying to log into the wonderful meritbadge site, but it is not available, nor has been all day. Anyone know what gives? Just maintenance I hope, as it is one of the most useful sites on the net for Scouts and Scouters I think.

Yep, if your screen shows the active working symbol, then just try and not force it. If the post is really important the way you wrote it, copy and save short term, open a new window or even different browser and go about your business. Come back and check later; if for some reason it did not post at all, try again with the saved copy, or just rewrite and hope it goes.

It will pretty much be a non issue with the scouts,as few of them even read a paper or listen to news. Unless an adult makes a scene, it will simply be another yawning response, if anything, though older boys may actually put forward an opinion at some point. If you have run your unit with the subject pretty much taboo, then you should be able to just go on as you have. As far as the few worrying about law suits, that is likely a really minor concern since it will no longer be a decision outside of the specific CO's purview, and there will be alternative units somewhere in most cases. Like everything, a bit of adjustment. But, just like women as scoutmasters, it will very soon just be part of the fabric of the specific unit.

It will pretty much be a non issue with the scouts,as few of them even read a paper or listen to news. Unless an adult makes a scene, it will simply be another yawning response, if anything, though older boys may actually put forward an opinion at some point. If you have run your unit with the subject pretty much taboo, then you should be able to just go on as you have. As far as the few worrying about law suits, that is likely a really minor concern since it will no longer be a decision outside of the specific CO's purview, and there will be alternative units somewhere in most cases. Like everything, a bit of adjustment. But, just like women as scoutmasters, it will very soon just be part of the fabric of the specific unit.

Merlyn; whether or not YOU think so, Political Correctness is a real problem in today's society. And Dale was "outed" in his own council by someone who saw the piece about the Alliance and his participation. At this point, hopefully this particular part of the debate will pretty much fade into the background until someone wanting to get attention or push a new agenda roils the waters again. Just my own opinion; so bluster all you want.

Calico and others; When I said it was "local option" prior to Dale, I meant the decision, because it went to SCOTUS, led to the hopefully abandoned policy currently still there. There were a number of locally divisive cases across the country starting back in the 70's, and Dale was simply the final push it seems to me. The Gay proponents seem to have determined to push it through their legal groups and get it into national media. When whomever "outed" James Dale did it and it became a flash point, National made the poor decision, as noted by Terry, to somehow take the CO out of the equation on this issue. We all know that on occasion we may have had to deal with local intra-troop distractions in relation to this subject; but the units simply did what was best for them and moved on for the most part. There is a good chance that should the PC crowd simply left it alone back then that the issue would have already resolved itself, just as other political and public changes did before. That is the perception I have come to based on my own reading and study of the subject. As had been pointed out, we have always had Gays in the program; it was generally just not an issue, as nobody felt the need to make it one for the most part. And just like an abusive alcoholic, wiped out druggie, or an in your face womanizer, the occasional Gay that felt the need to disrupt the unit was simply removed.

Really should be little impact, other than the few hyper sensitive individuals that somehow cannot even be around someone "different" without having an adverse response. Since sexual orientation has never been part of the program, it will not be now, unless someone chooses to try and make it so. Then they will likely be gone; at least in our unit they would be.

Basically, isn't it simply a return to how was before the media and Gay agenda pushers forced National into the wrong headed public decision? It was always the local choice until Dale or shortly before, and it seldom caused any problems because everyone accepted that private lives are just that, private, and that if you make your personal life a distraction to the unit, you will be asked to leave. On the other hand,God or some form of greater presence is still a cornerstone of the movement. But, since there is such a wide interpretation of spiritual beliefs and faiths, it rarely should be an issue, especially since few boys have arrived at their absolute position in that regard. But, if one is at the point of being certain they believe in nothing, they simply need to understand that they then no longer meet the standards. Certainly, adults who already have made the determination they are atheist simply need to accept they do not meet the qualifications.

"Maryland pack forced to withdraw popular non-discrimnation policy now votes on leaving the BSA" Merlyn; please try posting accurate title. They obviously did not vote to leave BSA. Your title suggests that they did. I realize you would prefer they had; but they did not, so you are not being accurate. Thank you.

Maybe it is really still just because of who does the appointing. Hold up important posts, and then blame the President for not dealing with things in that arena as well as he might do with a qualified adviser.

So 540; there are around 400 public schools, according to a quick search, around Oklahoma City. If you put one guard in each school and pay them say $15,000 a year, that is six million dollars. Not sure you could hire "qualified" people for that, but say you could. So, you really think people would approve additional taxes for such a thing; especially since the price tag would likely be higher in reality, and you would accomplish little with only one in each school. It also does not take into account the costs for likely having to reorient school layouts and, as Beavah notes, liability insurance. All the stuff you noted in taxes and so on were things people likely "would" vote for, as they have real measurable results. I think the real issue is what truly makes sense and is also affordable. It is like here in So Cal; we have no earthquake coverage for the condo association in which I live because the benefits do not meet costs. Rates are too high and deductible too much and structured to benefit the insurance company. So, we simply hope if one does happen, it will not knock us down, while individuals can get personal coverage through the state that will help with very basic losses only, but is there. But, it is also fairly obvious that some simply are not particularly rational about these kinds of things.

Come on now Schiff; don't inject common sense into the discussion. We all know that "lead shot" occurs naturally in the soil, right?

The actual gore was not allowed to be seen, and it was usually pretty obvious who were the bad guys and what happened to them when they were bad. Even many of the bad guys were still polite to women, and kids were still expected to be respectful to adults, or they were punished and parents were still held accountable for their kids' actions. Of course, you left out the other things playing as well then, such as Ozzie and Harriet, Andy Griffin, Leave it to Beaver, Hazel, Dennis the Menace; all of them had some type of moral to the story. How many of these are now seen on modern TV. Parents are either not there, are idiots, are held up as models when they represent what was once considered to be anomalous in society, or allow the kids to get away with anything because they do not want to hurt the child's fragile ego. Husbands are often portrayed in similar manner. People that show what was once considered common courtesy and positive responses to others' troubles are now made fun of as being foolish or worse, and sometimes even called "a boy scout". As an aside on the cowboys and Indians; the NRA needed to take them in and give them training, as most of them could not hit the broad side of the barn unless they were having a draw down in the street. Of course shooting a revolver or trying to aim a rifle while on a running horse, often twisting backwards as well, was not the best way of being a successful shooter. Of course, the horses seldom stumbled either, even thought supposedly running at full gallop over rough terrain. Of course, we also all knew that Indians always said "How" when greeting you, and generally they always either sneaked up on you in ambush, or ran in large groups in circles without fear of being shot by the beleaguered white men. Maybe the ridiculous simplicity of the plots, and the awful acting lent itself to not being taken seriously.

The big questions are his reasons for hating them. Probably was not a good idea to do two major activities the same summer either, as burnout will occur, especially after the fact, which may affect the experience when reviewed later. If you are averse to heat and humidity, you will not like either location a good amount of the time. If you do not really like to hike, you might not enjoy Jambo, and certainly are not ready for Philmont. If you are the much discussed "gimme Scout", you will not enjoy having to possibly fend for yourself on occasion; you have to work with the team in both activities. If you did not put any effort into earning your spot in these activities you will likely have little appreciation of the opportunities.

"Be Prepared!!!"

Beavah, you must really enjoy talking to walls??

Not sure the definition of "commercial banking" in this case; but if it is making sure my small deposits are covered, then it probably is desirable. After all, it was partly due to the lack of that protection that the depression had such an impact. If a small bank goes belly up our money should still be protected in some manner; otherwise people will again be putting it in mattresses and burying it in the yard.

I fail to see any indication of a threat of taking guns away. It is odd to me how anyone with even basic common sense can read that into the suggestions. As Beavah says, what is feared from rational responsible rules; we would hope most gun owners already pretty much adhere to them anyway? Now these nuts that started screaming even before anything was put on the table are really out there. There does not seem to be anything in the Presidential directives that do anything more than try and strengthen rules already in existence by National consistency in their interpretations and enforcement. This whole paranoia and "sky is falling" reaction is very similar to the same thing we see in posters about AHG, blue cards, and so on. Instead of jumping to the worst case scenario you can possibly come up with, how about at least waiting until there is an actual, factual concern rather than being a chicken little?

Put on our district FB site; thanks.

Explain to me "where" anyone is taking away the SM (or assigned leader) signature please. This is from the link posted on the first page of this thread, and you can even see a copy of the actual card if you wish, but it would not copy for me. This same quote is the start of the discussion. Do not understand where all this other stuff is coming from. Merit Badge Blue Card Revised A new version of the Application for Merit Badge, No. 34124, commonly referred to as the blue card, is being released later in January 2013. The availability of the new card will vary locally, and the old cards are still acceptable as councils exhaust their inventories. The new version will remain the old familiar blue and the change is a small one, but as it takes effect it will make a significant difference in the process. On the front side (first tri-fold portion) above the unit leaders signature line, the statement with the word qualified is being changed to: I have discussed this merit badge with this Scout and recommended at least one merit badge counselor. The wording change has been made due to confusion over the interpretations of qualified, approved, and approval, as applied to when a Scout could begin work on a merit badge. With the new statement, the unit leaders signature indicates that he or she and the Scout have talked about the Scouts desire to work on the merit badge and that a merit badge counselor has been recommended. The intent of the modification is to give the unit leader the chance to offer counseling as to whether or not the merit badge is a good choice for the Scout, based on his abilities and any prerequisites. The terms qualified or approved were never meant to indicate that the Scout needed to pass some sort of prequalifying test before pursuing a merit badge, or that the unit leader had pass/fail authority to allowor to not allowthe Scout to undertake work on a badge.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

What system that bypasses the SM? Am I missing something here? The change in the blue card still requires the SM approval if I read it correctly.

This change is so minor as to be almost negligible. All it does, from my point of view, is try to assure that the leader does his job as it was intended. The whole point of having him do this is to allow him to counsel the scout and ascertain his readiness. Logically, even with the old wording, that was the intent. Unfortunately, too many SM's either do not understand their job, or are unwilling to do it. There could be a time when a scout is not quite ready, and he should be helped to see that. Just because an 11 year old scout loves horses, he is not yet likely to be ready for Horsemanship, especially if he is one of the really small boys right out of Webloes. A boy with no swimming qualification is not "allowed" to take boating badges until he is certified a swimmer. Some scouts, possibly most, have not actually read the requirements, or simply skimmed them without understanding. I simply continue to have a hard time understanding the noise made by a few every time something is changed, even if it is only clarification or simplification. No scout is being done a favor by the leaders not trying to help them do advancement properly and completely, rather than letting them slide through because they might have their feelings hurt. We seem to have way too many people in the program that do not grasp the main intent from the beginning, helping a boy grow into a productive man and citizen. That job entails more than feel good patting on the head. But it also requires flexibility within the limits of the program, and making common sense decisions without constantly worrying about not crossing all the t's, or dotting all the i's. Maybe this slight change would not have been suggested if the original statement had been understood as it was intended if you read beneath the surface.

Eamonn, I think your comment is probably fairly representative of the majority of the populace in reality. While many may or may not agree with the constant PC stuff in the media, overall, they are supportive in a quiet manner. As has been noted numerous times, the silent majority voice is seldom actually heard.

Jim Rogers on UNDERCOVER BOSS program last night mentioned his Scouting background a number of times and how he feels its basic precepts have been instrumental in his success. Was interesting to see his floundering in some of the jobs, and nice to hear positive comments about Scouting without PC remarks.

I am continually amazed at the strange comments on these boards at times. Service, including sometimes potty patrol, is a part of scouting; and serving at the inauguration is particularly special. If you can brag that you helped with an inauguration you will be proud of yourself. It does not matter too much the job, although much of it is less than glamorous.