skeptic

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.

Surprised that noone has noted that there did not appear to be any discussion of the duty to God element on the Ellen Show. Of course, since I did not see the social media stuff, I cannot say anything; but if it was as questionable as some have said, that would certainly give me cause for concern if I was to know about it on a board, as it points at overall character. Too often young people, especially ones who already have issues, tend to make things worse for themselves by pushing limits to the breaking and trying to somehow become more accepted by risky activities and statements. It is not likely we will ever get the complete truth on this now, as it is now simply a circus of innuendo and finger pointing. At the same time, if the information is accurate on the non acceptance of religious element, then it should stand period, IMO. As far as the more publicized element goes; by making it into a media slugfest, he and his family have gone too far I feel. Without all the details on the project, knowing what "actually" happened within the troop leadership, and having seen how the PC people blow things far out of proportion, I feel National should stand their ground. That being said, I still feel like the local option should be inclusive of unit decisions period, unless they relate to actual illegal stuff or "true" youth protection issues. This one though likely would have blown up anyway, based on the info given. It appears the family was simply looking for a fight for whatever reason. That it should be in the Bay Area is not surprising. BSA is not soon going to find much support in the media, no matter what they do. They have now become the whipping boy of choice by the PC agendas. Back to worrying about my own unit and the challenges that are important, while trying to protect the kids from the fools that care little about anything but their own self importance and opinions.

Read this to get another perspective on these issues. http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2012/10/why-i-dont-support-gay-eagle-scout-ryan-andresens-tactics.html

There was a time, prior to WWII, that some religious CO's discouraged young unmarried men from leadership. But, that has not been the case for a very long time; and I do not believe it ever was a National ban. Have to go way back in materials to see.

We have/had home schooled scouts, and also ones in private schools. Overall, the HS ones seem to be a bit more polite and attentive, as well as appear to be ahead of their peers in many subjects. However, a few have/had serious social barriers because of little intermixing with peers. This is somewhat mitigated today by HS groups that meet once or twice a week for interactive functions and parental sharing. However, some parents will not participate in these groups, and it generally shows in the child's social contacts. The other issue with a few of the kids in HS is the parental inability to recognize the child may have real learning problems that need professional help. These are the ones that get brought to scouts to somehow overcome things most leaders and units have little experience with or ability to handle. So, I surmise that while there may be some relationship between egocentrism in scouts and home schooling, it is more likely it is the parenting methods and that HS is just another way to not deal with realities of their child's personalities or needs.

Is it pie time?? Make mine gooseberry.

Sentinel just reinforces the observations I have posted before about the subject in middle school and higher elementary grades, especially among the boys. There seems to often be a disconnect with the difference between toleration and acceptance. It should be interesting to see how the projections of the younger generation changing the dynamic goes as they get older. Many of us have found ourselves discarding things about which we had strong opinions as youth, in favor of more middle of the road attitudes. Thanks Sentinel for pointing out your observation, even though the strident few will cast it aside as immaterial to the facts.

Maybe not in this country as yet (though some might wish it so), the Boy Scout Handbook, or its equivalent in other Scouting orgs.

While it is true almost anyone can read a story, it is also true that some read stories much better than others. Understanding the reason for punctuation, using proper intonation where needed, and using hand, along with facial expressions as needed to fit the story are things fewer use to advantage. As far as age goes, all ages appreciate a good story read or even recorded. All you have to do is watch kids if they are exposed to either old radio programs such as The Shadow, or more current material from recordings or today's radio stations. Personally, I feel story listening and reading are inter-related. Most kids whose parents read to them regularly, starting early, and continue as time and schedules allow, appear to be superior readers with better comprehension. But, I had never thought about the new devices such as Kindle for that type of thing. As I get older, it is harder for me to remember some stories, especially ones I have not told as often. As yet I have not gotten any type of reader, but I may have to reconsider.

Lisa: Short and succinct; that "should" be the final word here.

Never been a minimum for a sash as far as I know, other than looking a bit odd with only one or two. But with today's mostly short sleeves, wearing them on the sleeve is uncommon.

The only reason noting home school is that he does not have to accountable for his educational level, or compete directly with other students. Most home schooled kids seem to be pretty bright, but they do often feel more privileged than those in public, or even private schools. It was not a slam at home schooling per se; just another part of the picture. Why is he home schooled? Because the parents did not like his results and interactions in the public school. I find it interesting though that my question has only been responded to by a few, while everyone else seems focused on the boy and parent. My issue is how to fairly guide scouts in my charge that see him getting away with stuff. Thanks for the ideas and comments that have so far addressed this.

It would truly be an eye opener if somehow the "none of the above" or "none of the below" option was made available. We might see some eyes opened. Not sure if I would actually vote that way though, as we could end up with nobody; yet that might force a change. Just spitting in the wind anyway, as that will not happen.

Scoutmaster of another district unit who has boys who know this one. They have started asking pointed questions, and am not sure if my current approach of basically self pride is doing the job. In many years, this is most extreme one I have seen; hardly saw any until about 10 to 12 years ago.

We have an 11 year old, home schooled, in our district that is already into his third troop in a year. He came into scouts at the absolute minimum age, possibly even fudged it a bit, since his father was the webloe leader and cubmaster. While in cubs he "earned" every award available at every level, even though few other cubs in his unit earned many of them. Okay, maybe he just worked harder. He was wearing a First Class patch within two months of entering a troop, but he had not had a board even for 2nd yet. His father just bought the patch and said he completed everything, so he should get to wear it. When questioned about the unit activity participation, he said that they did their own in his backyard with a couple of his patrol members from the cubs, and they did some service with another cub; now there was no tour permits filed, and the service (?) was not a troop activity. When they refused to approve the ranks, his father moved them to another troop. Now, the boy, who just turned officially eleven about 6 weeks ago is wearing a Life patch, even though the troop they moved to has not had a board or approved it; similar situations. The father, you guessed it, a lawyer, intimated legal questions in their not "immediately" approving this advancement, even when it was pointed out that a couple of things were not approved by anyone authorized to do so, and that even if they did, the unit has 30 days to arrange the board. So, now they are in the process of, or have, moved to troop number 3. Will be interesting to see how this one works, as this troop has a tradition of not letting people slide; but the current SM is also a lawyer and met with the dad a couple of times prior to now. Council of course refused to be involved. And the father has pointedly informed all that his "son's goal" is to become the youngest Eagle ever. For a while, the scout seemed willing to step back and work in the system, but now he has become just as demanding as his father. This is making him less than the most popular boy in the unit, and is also making scouts question how he is allowed to get away with this, when our own scouts are not. They all know each other, and the scout is beginning to "lord" it over the others who are pretty much where you might expect after a couple of years, or close to it, while he has less than a year. Yes, I am aware the time frames actually do not match up for Life quite yet, but even that is questioned by dad, as he claims the first class was finished exactly 30 days into his scout participation, and that the dates should have been adjusted to when he "completed the signed" items in the book. Whatever, the real issue is how do we make it palatable to our own scouts who we are trying to have actually "earn" ranks and so on? Talk about personal pride? Talk about how we should listen to conscience? Any thoughts? Meanwhile, waiting for the call from dad to me, though I do not see it happening, as he likely knows better.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

You mean we have some of the infamous "47%" in Scouting? Oh my! Our troop never gives help to a family that does not participate in fund raising, especially since most of the funds go to scout accounts directly. Have had a few that never went to camp in the summer because of this, and even a couple parents that questioned why they were denied help when others were not. Pointing out to them that they made no effort to participate in fund raising only brought huffs and puffs and excuses. Camperships through the council only cover a max of 50%, and the troop has to come up with the rest. So, assuming they apply to council, that means less than $200 personally they would need to raise, or a bit more with spending money. Oh, and at least one of the families had both parents smoke, and they were out drinking every weekend. We all have it. The good thing is that I have also had a few scouts from similar circumstances that have made it a point of pride to "not miss" any fund raising opportunity, and generally has made enough to cover all their camping for the year, as well as dues. Maybe the parents should look at their example.

Well, one good thing can be said (NOT); if we keep this up we will certainly soon not have to worry about being the world wide "example" as to how to run a democracy. Some of this stuff is reminding me of things we have read about in newly voting populations in other countries. I vote by mail; what do they perhaps want to do to make that more difficult, since I am non-partisan? They changed my physical voting place a few years back, but they publish the address in the voting material we receive, even though we are both permanent by mail. Is California actually doing it right?

Let's show our age again; "It's a Foooooord!"

Why can't everyone be "independent" and simply vote whomever is perceived as the best option, rather than the best party. Rose colored glasses are pretty, even if they they do obscure reality. It is time for "Mr. Smith" to magically succeed in his candidacy.

So, here we have another segment in the "let's make sure BSA stays in the negative spotlight" series. But of course there is not any planning in the publication timing, just a coincidence that the previous uproar had receded. While not being on the "media is biased to the left" platform, I am beginning to wonder about their bias in regard to BSA. Why are they not going for public record disclosure from ALL legal or police filings from this period that were never prosecuted or quietly pleaded out? How about reviewing public school records of reports to principals or district personnel? How about digging into Big Brothers, GS or YMCA? Oh, that's right, they have bent to the PC crowd. Maybe someone should re-review these same files and see how much data that might not show poor decision making by the BSA is NOT reported; or footnotes about non cooperation of families or authorities? This pulling out the absolutely worst pieces of the files, while not showing the complete file, is simply biased reporting. Nobody has ever claimed mistakes, and on occasion, simply horribly wrong decisions were made; but this witch hunt does no one much good except the lawyers and a few victims that will get part of a settlement as they dredge up stuff to open old emotional trauma and possibly family problems. Still, it seems time for BSA to bring them all out, unless there are actual legal declarations to stop them being shared, and to reinforce what changes have been instituted in the past couple of decades to mitigate these kinds of things. They may very well already be planning for how to handle this, as it is stated the doubling of the CO charter cost is primarily to cover "insurance" costs. The sooner they face the music, so to speak, the sooner this issue will become too little fodder for the haters of BSA. Unfortunately, they will simply find something else with which to denigrate the program, as that is their apparent goal. In the mean time, we in the real program need to continue to try and do it right, and makes "good" decisions and follow up to assure something was done if necessary.