skeptic

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.

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.