skeptic

There is a related problem with Eagle identifications. Having reviewed records in depth, due to research on our troop history, I discovered that there is a number assigned to the Eagle, apparently on completion at National. Then, if the Eagle becomes a member of NESA, they too assign a number. So, council Eagle records very often show the same person under two different numbers, and on rare occasions even more if reregistration to NESA was done using a variant on the name, or inconsistent Eagle or council data. I personally am shown twice due to this problem. In regard to that, there is also a disconnect in NESA for Eagles earned in councils no longer in existence. It took me forever to get mine accurate, as it insisted my Eagle was in the council in which I now live, even though the unit never existed here. In very early records, there appears to be a strong likelihood of "lost" records in the case of scouts registered by National due to no local council at the times. I have tried a number of times to get access to early paper records on Eagles to see if there may be a few from our county, since we had hundreds of scouts dating from 1910 to 1921 when the council began. The data sent to the council has none prior to the inception of the council, which seems unlikely due to the records beginning in 1921 and the number of very early Eagles then. I have hit a brick wall though in trying to get access, even when I was in Dallas and willing to simply review things personally. Oh well; maybe someday it will all get fixed.

And of course our most astute and accurate news site is on it. I periodically sign in there to see what their latest is, and caught Hannity making a big deal about this. Of course they are also baying about the generals, suggesting 100% districts in Philly are likely fraud, and demanding special prosecutor for Libya, while suggesting once again impeachment. It has been a whole week since the election. They never seem to see how ridiculous they sound half the time. And, if they actually have someone try and voice something reasonable, they almost never are allowed to finish a statement.

I would probably put something like "tu" or "tew" or something denoting the spelling sounds, and it would use quotation marks of other set off indicators. Same could be done with other words.

It has been less than a week since the election, and already we have stuff all over the net and even in local papers' letters about how awful the results are and how the country is going to implode because of it. Then we have idiot business owners and so on spouting off how they are now going to lay people off because the ACA is so unfair and will kill their profits; or they are going to make all employees part time. Of course, many of these same people would never reduce their own incomes, even though most are drawing far more than most regular employed people make. Somehow they feel their own inflated needs (???) take precedence over being fair to their employees. While a few may actually have legitimate concerns, most of the ones making this noise are simply using it as an excuse to reduce costs at the expense of others and blame the government, especially the president. This in turn leads back to the sheep baaing even more loudly how the world is coming to an end or something to that effect. The most disturbing comments though are the ones that are openly, and blatantly either threatening in some manner, or simply purposely demean the President and anyone who may have voted for him. I am one of those; and I can assure you that I have worked hard most of my life, and I have never expected anyone but myself to be responsible for my well being. I did draw unemployment when I was downsized from my job; but it was never extended, and it was partially reduced when I found part time work. Went without any health insurance due to the same RIF after the cost quickly became far too much. I am fortunate that if I was able to get on VA at the minimum level due to my active duty during the Vietnam Era; but the local hospital emergency would still have been my only recourse in an emergency, which I did not have happen at least. At least the VA "was" there for me, as was the short term unemployment. So, I guess I am another one of the parasites, since I used those buffers when I needed to after serving in the military and working almost forty years consistently. I have friends with whom I choose not to discuss these things because they are so completely paranoid about it all. Some have had some tough times the past few years and have struggled to work multiple jobs. Yet they still found money for a lot of electronic stuff, multiple vehicles, and occasional trips to amusement parks or other high priced entertainment; and many overextended themselves with little forethought about what they actually could afford and still have a cushion should they need it. A few also are regular drinkers and/or smokers. But it is the government's fault they are over their heads. I like them as casual friends or acquaintances; but I have trouble feeling overly sorry for their self inflicted issues. Many of them, of course, have taken advantage of various government aids when they could; yet they still complain about those awful freeloaders. Lots of room for improvement and correction of the ACA; and I would think that would be a major challenge undertaken the next few years. Mr. Obama has already acknowledged the Act needs these things, and he is willing to work to iron it out. Much of the hand ringing is built on long term expenses that may or may not happen, depending on a lot of factors. Tweaking the Act, or even removing certain parts is what needs to be done; not wail about how it will ruin the country and bankrupt everybody. There is opportunity to fix the tax code; find ways to reduce debt without pulling the carpet out from under those that truly need support, even as we rework the benefits to reduce their abuse; and encourage logical immigration reform while actually upholding current law fairly and without prejudice; and fix our election system to eliminate the outlandish costs and negativity, as well as the actual voting registration and process. All of these things necessitate a government that actually governs and does its job, and is not centered on its own needs, but those of the people who elect them. Well, I now withdraw from the soap box. I understand that I am "jousting at windmills". But, sometimes you simply have to vent.

California has a lot of issues, as most know. But, one good thing that has come out of our propositions is term limits and a relatively unbiased district boundary process. Also, as someone pointed out, the two highest vote recipients in spring primaries run, even if from the same party. Also, the governor and lieutenant governor are elected separately which allows opposite parties at times. In regard to choosing the president, I would like to either see popular vote be the only factor, or if the electoral college is to stay in place, then ALL states would have their votes earned by popular vote percentage, rather than all or nothing. It would make a huge difference in the final result.

OGE; I feel a bit sheepish in that I should have noted that these observations are not limited to these forums. It is even worse on Facebook, especially with the use of text talk in many of the postings. It is heck being old and a frustrated poet.

For over a year now I have been noting the carelessness of mis-typing or simply, heaven forbid, not understanding the difference between "lose" and "loose". So, today I lost it and decided to "loose" my frustration here. "loose lips sink ships"; not "lose" lips sink ships, though I guess if your lips were "loose" you might "lose" a ship or two. The football game was lost because of a "loose" defense; if we knew how to tackle, maybe we would not "lose" so many games. If you "lose" your temper, then you "loose" bad vibes on those around you. Hopefully "loose" comments will not "lose" you respect. So, now that I have "loosed" my frustration about this here, I might finally "lose" the pain that tweaks me every time I see the misuse or simply lack of discipline in proofing typing. Then we will need to talk about "there", "their", and "they're"; the difference between "take" and "bring"; "to" and "too", hopefully never "two"; and the fact there is not such word as "irregardless". One can hope can't they?(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Thanks; on target.

Am not certain what has changed, at least for me. I have had access to these things for a while now. Did not realize as SM I might have more on-line advantages. Maybe that is why some leaders have looked at me as crazy when I commented about doing advancement or checking rosters. Slowly it evolves.

Yesterday I had seven scouts and three adults, including myself, helping in a Forest Service related cleanup of a closed shooting site. It was sponsored by one of the local area forest support volunteer groups. My experience with these groups is that they tend toward what would be considered "liberal" by many, so likely could project negativeness towards BSA based on media issues. There was not one negative comment from any of them. Rather, they were all thrilled to have our help, and especially appreciated the kids, even commenting on their enthusiasm on finding strange things, as well as noting they were pretty typical in focus, needing to be prodded a bit at times, but keeping at it. Only one example, but I honestly was a bit concerned I might have to field some negative comments and or deal with innuendo. Was pleased I did not, and even more pleased with the apparently open acceptance and welcome. As an aside, we had a troop reunion of sorts. An 80 year old gentleman came down from Santa Barbara to help out, a part of the greater LPNF support group that sponsored. He heard me say where we met (no uniforms, though did have troop t's by some). He asked the troop number, and then told me he had been in our unit during WWII. Another lost alumnus found. Hope to have a photo a guy took of him with three of the current scouts and myself; sort of three generations. But, he noted that they did a lot of community service back then; and he is still doing it.

While National has been very poor in their response to this, and not proactive, the files themselves are not nearly as bad as the media portrays. Even the ones they cherry picked had comments about family reservations or local officials outside of scouting choosing to sweep it under the carpet. Then you read the ones where actual prosecution occurred, and the individuals were put on probation for most of the sentence. Especially before the era of fast and more efficient computers, the scouts response was often pretty good. There is enough blame to go around in the small amount of material we see, and much of it can be equally laid at the feet of cultural aversion and authorities avoidance of taking it seriously. And the idea that it all should be made public is nothing more than an invitation to another MacMartin. Anyone remember that?

In our council you cannot return any chocolate product, period, and only full cases otherwise at the time Take orders are placed. Our council at least has been badly burned by Trails End not accepting returns, so the council has to be careful to not get stuck with huge surpluses. Of course, it does not help when some unit, as happened in the past, ordered way too much product for store front sales, then returned 50% or more. Your best bet, at least here, is to look at the size of your selling group and who will actually participate, then look at last year, and order conservatively up front based on that. You can generally get more; but returning too much becomes dicey. We ordered roughly what we sold last year, then got what we needed if we ran out of something, or made it a "Take" order. From my perspective, it is better to be conservative, no matter how gung ho someone may be in your group. Just my thoughts.

Excellent!

Yep; to that I would certainly agree. It is odd, particularly since the info on-line regarding her issues with the city are pure legalese, though could have been done by her husband who supposedly is a book publisher and connected, at one anyway, to a law firm. Who knows. Just another example of our egocentric society.

Yep, definitely a gadfly of some sort. Could not help myself, I Googled her. Has sued the city of Buena Park regarding zoning issues and accused them of racial prejudice. List herself as a Peace Advocate for occupation and claims to have been educated at Carnegi Mellon and Harvard, as well as worked for various branches of military support in the government. Guess I just will never understand some individual's reasoning, or lack of it.

Even if the info in the alleged firefighter's letter is accurate, it would likely only garner an award of merit of some sort. Of course, the rest of the petition is so disjointed and meandering, that it makes very little sense to me. Even those on that site are not really responding to it, as it has very few signatures even after weeks. Something is odd; possibly just another publicity stunt or attempt to embarrass Scouting.

Youth protection conference hosted by BSA. http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-boy-scouts-host-anti-abuse-forum-183117154.html

http://www.kwqc.com/story/19907647/president-buys-boy-scout-popcorn-from-davenport-boy#.UJAjwEqq7Sw.twitter Oh my; the President who "hates" the Boy Scouts purchases popcorn. "The sky is falling!"

From Nelson Block's short biography on Green Bar Bill. Our current pro's might take note, as well as ourselves. "Throughout his work with the national office, Bill maintained his dogged effort to see that material was thoroughly researched, well-organized and invitingly presented. Boys and leaders must be taught Scoutcraft that worked. The national staff must set an example in living up to the standards they proposed others live by. Those who did not measure up were in for a discussion with Bill. Even if it was the Chief Scout Executive." http://www.trussel.com/prehist/crump/hillcour.htm

Nice job; I will keep this on file for my own use if okay, since I also counsel it. Just a suggestion of additional important figures to add, along with links of use. It is likely that without Robinson, the first group would have been less successful and might very well have failed, as Robinson was responsible for landing West. Of course we all know about Hillcourt and I still do not believe they left him off the list to start with. Edgar M. Robinson: Part of initial founders group and instrumental in establishing the successful committee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_M._Robinson William Hillcourt; AKA Green Bar Bill: Wrote many of best early manuals and instrumental in many of the best training materials relating to the Patrol Method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hillcourt http://www.bsatroop14.com/history/yarn6hillcourt.pdf http://www.scouter.com/features/0290.asp(This message has been edited by skeptic)

The Scripp's "Trail of Betrayal" series began in Sundays local paper; so far almost 7 full pages of stuff. While they definitely are noting local officials sometimes not charging someone, and also the lightness of sentences in some cases, I find it sad that they continue to put the blame completely on BSA in their statements. I will wait to make further comment until the whole series is complete in a day or two. On day one, there was a quarter page insert of local cases; and they all were handled properly it appears, including a number with long prison terms. I knew two of them personally, and one completely surprised me. The other, looking back, I was not completely blind sided, as I had heard comments and innuendo in a few instances, but never in front of the boys (when I was present); but they were all questionable comments about women and teen girls. He quit making those comments to me after I told him I thought they were inappropriate, or some language to that end.

I just read the short notice, not really an article, about this. It continues to confound me that a few on here are so over the top against the program. We have a new unit in our district area, and it has a wide base of religious beliefs within the families. Other than actually having the belief in God element, they are not pushing any particular religion. Most interesting to me was the note that they have membership in other countries, including India. Now, I realize someone here will say that is a tool to proselytize; but maybe it is simply an offering for a worthwhile alternative female program. Perhaps, when the group began, it was a bit more focused on a specific Christian goal. But, like many groups, they soon realized that gave too narrow a pool, and that direct proselytizing was a hindrance. But, just like BSA, the CO controls the direction of the unit; so the level of religious indoctrination likely varies considerably. Of course, I also understand that those so adamantly opposed here will respond in their usual strident manners; which to me is the saddest part of this thread.

OGE; not sure Shirley Booth was ever "hot".

As for the continued bandying of "public money statements", you will find if you actually look that in the large majority of the cases the government entity is getting free maintenance of property and much of the time improvements that pass to it should the BSA use lapse. That was the reason the court sided with BSA in Philly, even with all the PC screaming. Same should occur should the San Diego case ever be resolved. The city has gotten far more benefit than they would be receiving should it be in city hands, especially in the current economic atmosphere. Military facilities aid groups other than the BSA with minor support activities and some use of properties. In the larger cases, such as AP Hill, not only did BSA pay tens of millions of dollars to the government, and leave many on site improvements, but the base got training opportunities seldom available outside actual emergencies or war. Then, of course, as just noted; service given by the BSA, especially through Eagle projects, saves the governments of communities all over the country many dollars and often contributes long term benefits that would be absent should they not be done. In our small council, with only around 200 Eagles a year, the average amount of project hours is 30,000 plus per year; much of that goes to public benefit in schools, parks, and the forests. But, as one of our "favorite" posters likes to say; "so what". They should be shunned and cut off from because they have some beliefs with which not everyone publicly believes. So we do not want their benefits to our communities. His right, but highly misguided as most fanatical adherents to things tend to be. JMHO of course.

Just hope that here, on this forum, we have "equal" representation. If not, then it is turned into a biased political canvas. You can choose to not read them, but it is hard to ignore them.