skeptic

We certainly had paper merit badge applications in the late 50's and early 60's in So Cal; SGVC and the old Arrowhead Area, now Inland Empire. And I have examples of various types of these forms dating clear back to the 30's. So, maybe much was local at one time. More recently, some of our large council camps have gone to computerized master sheets with individual print outs for each one from camp, including sheets for partials. These took the place of the blue cards in those camps. Our camp is still using them, but we only got electronic sign-up this year; so we may see a different record keeping method for camp soon too. Meanwhile, we no longer are required to turn in a card with the advancement report. So we have basically now a troop record card I guess.

Others I sort of miss; "Lost in Space", "Twelve-o-clock High", "Twentymule Team Days (Yes, it was Reagan)", and a crazy serial called "Topper" that had these crazy ghosts and their ghost St. Bernard. Of course there also were the staples such as "Dragnet", "Car 54", and "Highway Patrol", and "Disneyland, later The Wonderful World of Disney". Who remembers Sheriff John (think I read he eventually was convicted of perversion), and of course "Howdy Doody". So many seemingly simplistic programs that somehow are nostalgic, such as "Ozzie and Harriet", or "Beaver or "Life with Father". I was madly in love with Annette Funicello in 1957, until I realized she was too old; then I decided I liked Karen Pendleton instead; that was the first Mickey Mouse Club of course. Remember while sick the summer of 56 watching the Republican convention and counting Ike's "and, uh's"; I was captive to my grandmother.

Very difficult to comprehend some of the apparent actions, or non-actions. But we also do not know what else may be in the files that might have made the decision happen, such as a parent refusing to allow the filing due to concern for the child or some other reason. I also found the comment section to be very interesting. Seems to be a lot of people that are not particularly fond of the media, and the Times in particular.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-boyscouts-20120805-m,0,5822319.story So, here we have the first of surely many additional attacks on BSA due to the release of some of the so called "Perversion Files". Obviously, they did not always do what was intended; but they often did. And, we really do not know the details of the reentry in those that did slip through, though most were out of the original area, and predated computer records. I am disappointed that there were cases that should not have occurred after the initial record was entered, and especially disappointed some officials made very poor decisions. They have continued to advance with the protections, and we need to use the barriers that we have in place. What continues to be upsetting to me is that during most of the time these records were being compiled, barely anything else was done by others, including legal authorities. There is no doubt errors were made, and sometimes egregious decisions; but where were all the other efforts to stop this stuff? Why was the general response by authorities and even those most affected to just put it out of site and mind, or to NOT believe that certain individuals could actually do this, so the victims got little or no credence, often being labeled unstable or trying to get even or something. Yes, we see these things differently as a society now; but you cannot not undo what was the norm years before. So, here we are today. Let's change the rules, and let's try and destroy a group, even though they did more than others then, and continue to work to strengthen their protections. But they can bring us money and notoriety. I suggest, that while they are subpoenaing records, they start going to ALL the police departments in the country and ask for their records on any similar cases, no matter how old, as well as court records if taken to a higher level. Then, when you find how many similar things may have occurred, hold the police and community leaders responsible, since they did not meet the standards of conduct now seen as prudent. And, do searches for old stories related to these types of things that indicate no guilt was determined, and go back and review them; they too likely will render opportunity.

Yep; and yep, loved Wild, Wild, West.

AZ is right; Robert Conrad was the voice of Matt Dillon. Picture him next to James Arness, and you understand my amusement. We listend on a five band floor console radio with buttons. Of course we also listened to other stuff with our parents, but we got 7 to 9 on Saturday nights most of the time. We did not have a dependable TV until Christmas of 1955 or so did not see much of the really early stuff unless at grandparents. Years ago, we were driving out to Edwards AFB for a Friday through Sunday outing and tour, and I had 5 or 6 kids in the van. We picked up a station from somewhere playing a suspense program of some kind. We arrived at the campsite just before 10PM, and I had 3 scouts refuse to leave the van until the show finished at 10, they were so hooked. Proof again that they still "can" use their imaginations under the right situations. (This message has been edited by skeptic)

You guys are "really" old, or just good at Googling. So how many had a short period, my brother and I had 2 hours, on Saturday evening to "listen" to THE GREEN HORNET, GUNSMOKE, THE SHADOW and others? We also played 78 records from the 30's and 40's that our parents had; did not have money to buy newer ones til a teen. Funny thing about Gunsmoke was Matt Dillon on the radio. I met James Arness at the jamboree in 1960; still have a signed photo. We all know what he looked like, and sounded like. The voice was very similar to the radio voice. But the radio voice was NOT Arness. Anyone know who it was? I find it really amusing, when I make comparisons. Hint; he played a detective on TV in the 70's.

We old guys had the indignity of having to watch black and white TV on 12 inch or smaller sets, sometimes with round screens. Our favorite fare were the old B cowboy movies and of course Gene, Roy, Wild Bill, Hopalong, Cisco, Sky, and the Ranger. Later, only a bit, were Matt and the Cartwrights of course. So, finish the names above, and supply sidekicks, horses, dogs, or even vehicles. This should be interesting.

BSA24 Not sure where you are getting your info, but copyrights and trademarks certainly were not paid for with your tax dollars. How you could even suggest that is beyond me. And, of course, the nonsense of using A.P.Hill for free; BSA paid tens of millions of dollars to the government for each jamboree for support of various types, as well as building some facilities used by the base during the time jambo was not in session. Unless you are in Utah, chances are pretty good that the Mormon influence is not overpowering to other sponsors' units. In our council, LDS has little impact and tend to be very cooperative with the others. Of course they still run their own "brand" of unit, but it does not effect the rest of us other than when they check in to camp on Monday morning early, and the camp staff has to do a bit of scrambling, or when they leave COR Saturday nights in mass. We have access to their facilities for meetings much of the time, and other than not being able to have coffee, nothing is different than anywhere else we meet. Your antipathy towards Mormons is almost on the level of a few other posters' in regard to AHG. Neither is a good example of the Oath or Law. And I am not Mormon; but I do have numerous Mormon friends in and out of scouting. And, I do not get where the blather about the outdoor program comes from. Scouts camp far more today than we did as scouts in the 50's and early 60's, especially back country camping. They also do high adventure and cope in most councils, as well as at the National bases. Other than Philmont, Maine, and the Canoe Base were pretty much it in much of the country back when. Early summer camps were more like YMCA camps or church camps in the way they were run, with little or no unit camping like today, rather individual scouts more or less on provisional basis. Today's outdoor program is far more challenging in many respects, other than having the advantage of modern equipment. Sure, there are units that do not use the outdoor program well; but there were similar units going back to the beginning. Day hikes were more common in the very early days, as many scouts had to do chores on the farms, as well as little specialized equipment. My troop, which began in 1921 camped in orange groves and on the leader's ranch much of the time, though they did go to the end of the road into the mountains and camp too, either by truck or horses with mules. Of course, there are also many restrictions on things we can do in the wilds now. Because of wildfires, much of the camping area in the west is closed, or severely restricted much of the year, including the prime times. Hunting requires licenses, as does fishing. We cannot simply build a structure or cut trees because it is fun or convenient. We have to purify water in most cases to be safe. And of course we have YP and other restrictions caused by overly protective parents, litigation run amok, and legislators owned by corporations and other monied organizations. There is much room for improvement in the BSA; but it is still far closer to its roots in many respects than most of our current society. That of course is one of the reasons people think it should change. Most that continue to support it, do so because it has strayed less from its base than others and refuses to abandon that foundation. JMHO

Not sure where you got that idea; YP serves a very useful purpose and works if followed for the most part. While we all know that people with records generally do not apply for membership, at least not under known names; but screening and 2 deep are two very good barriers just the same. If you only catch one with proper review and background you have done the intent of the rule. And, unless the two deep are in cahoots, it is likely to make most questionable activity fairly rare. Leader ship though should be a local choice, as long as the basic screening and so on does not turn up problems.

MONITORS; Should we possibly move this to the Issues forum? Seems to have edged into another arm of that on going discussion and argument. AZMike; Thanks for the link on the above article. It surely raises some additional questions. That is certainly one of my responses to many statements here and on occasional other forums. Why would we say a Gay individual would be in complete control of themselves when in contact with possibly physically mature children, while hetero's are expected to be less in control? Of course, part of the whole issue is where the dividing line is between emotional maturity and physical maturity. Even in this country, very young teen marriages or arrangements when official marriage overseers such as ministers were not available, were common. My great-grandmother was married at 14 to the 15 year old neighbor, arranged to push them both out due to family size; my grandmother was born a year later. No one even blinked an eye back then, as it was normal. Whether or not they actually were ready to be out on their own is speculative at best, but there is no indication that they had any real problems beyond the norm of the late 19th century. And we constantly have examples of mid teen youth functioning well beyond their expected level of proficiency in numerous areas. Now how much "real" research is being done, or has been done, on the realities of physical maturation and physical relationships is unclear. We tend to be overly protective or defensive in some ways, yet completely naive or accepting in other ways. Look at the growth of so called little miss contests and such, or the continued sexualization of children's clothing, especially girls. While one can scream and holler about how bigoted BSA is with this position, we still cannot deny that it is at least a response that recognizes "some possibility" of a connection either ignored or not understood. Why would it be okay to overreach on safety from climbing or hiking, but not in adult youth interaction? Still, I would far prefer National put it back into the unit's hands and let them deal with it. Proper youth protection and screening, especially by the CO, go a long way towards avoiding most risk in these areas. Nothing will eliminate it totally of course, just like we cannot absolutely eliminate risk in outdoor activities, or driving, or whatever. Just some observations and maybe points for thought.

Moose; Or.............You could see contributions again increase due to the silent majority who usually do not weigh in. That is what happened the first time this really hit; people came out of the woodwork to donate "directly"; and many dropped United Way when they withdrew support in some areas. It is not nearly as accepted as some think. Poll respondents are almost always NOT particularly representative of the larger population, no matter what some will suggest. I know I seldom ever respond to the annoying polls that arrive through the telephone, or occasionally the mail. JMO of course.

Have you reviewed the "Scoutmaster Minute" threads here?

Projects were not required until the mid 60's, so that far back is unlikely. We have a couple of photos in our troop scrapbook from the late 20's or early 30's of mountain lions hanging from ropes on tree branches back when there was a bounty in our area. I believe alligators were also a bounty animal at one time. So, if project "had" been in effect then, maybe that would have been acceptable.

Rather than a new OA; "the Old OA". Return to the days when elections "were" an honor, and not simply an expected perk of making First Class. That would not be too hard; simply reinstate the older election requirements, perhaps with a few adjustments to the newer program. Personally, I would prefer to have optional adult requirements that "could" recognize adults who support the core camping in troops by being on most outings, and becoming trained in high adventure and outdoor elements, as well as Trail Boss and such, even if they are unable to spend a full week with a unit in the summer due to family or work responsibilities. Finally, make the Ordeal meaningful again in some way, including returning some control on candidates that simply refuse to adhere to the challenges during the 24 hours or so. They mean nothing if there is no accountability to NOT meeting them. The ridiculous idea that you cannot still do these things without hazing or something is just that, ridiculous. But, what do I know; I am old and out of touch?

Shortridge; nowhere did I say that Gays or homosexuals are troubled. I said that some are, usually the most expressive ones that cannot keep from being in others' faces, and causing other's to react. And yes, the comfort of the majority sometimes takes precedence; and that has nothing to do with equality. But this also would be the case with an animal abuser, or a scout on drugs, or an arsonist, or any number of other possibly troubled youth that could be a part of the group. They have no more rights than the others to "act out" and cause friction.

So Shortridge; would you prefer to chance another McInerney situation? If the school had responded to the situation by removing the main source(s) of friction, even though it might not seem fair, this would not have happened. Kids do stupid and irrational things; and in today's world, they often seem to think they have a right to over react and injure or kill. That is what I meant when I note "becomes a threat or makes it an issue". The same thing would occur should a scout choose to do other things that cause similar frictions. The safety, and yes, comfort of the majority is more important in some cases. Most kids in scouts who might be struggling with this would not likely make it public or be in the faces of others, so it would not really be a problem. But no group working with kids should be expected to put up with behavior or language that is disruptive or dangerous from their participants indefinitely. At some point, the hard decisions have to be made; and that likely will be at the expense of the more troubled individual. Again, I do not understand how so many cannot accept realities that actually happen. We are not psychologists or social workers(not usually anyway); and we should not be expected to deal with over the top, emotionally destructive issues just because the individual is troubled. The majority within the unit, at some point, takes precedence. This seems like common sense to me; but of course "common sense" is often not PC.

Yep; all the blather about how out of step BSA is really is nothing to the majority of the membership in actual units. When push comes to shove, if it is your own kid who "might" be directly exposed to even remotely possible negative examples, the parents will side with the safest idea. In this case, no matter how much we hear about how Gays are not threats, and so on, especially males, the parents in the end will prefer to "not take a chance". Also, it is really tiresome to continue to hear how we do not allow Gay kids either, when the policy is specifically aimed at leadership. The only time a Gay kid would be asked to leave would be when he becomes either a threat to other scouts, or insists on making it public, which then causes friction and controversy. Anyone in the schools knows how actual adolescent boys react to even the hint of someone being Gay, or being called Gay. We have enough preteen and adolescent angst with which to deal, without having to moderate this on the youth level. The PC people will "never" accept the fact that the LGBT community "is not mainstream", just because it is cool to be PC and not face reality. That famous "silent majority" is still simmering in the background; and it could at some point reach its breaking point. Still, National is erring in NOT making local choice the option. As noted, then most of this would simply disappear. Sometimes I wonder how people can be so blind to the real world, and what goes on around them. Surely what I see in the schools regularly is common, maybe even more so in less liberal states, since I am in So Cal. Or, maybe I am simply imagining it all. JMO

Pack; do not see anyone suggesting B.P., the original, did not make poor decisions or bad choices. Only saying that in this particular case, his pseudo namesake is way over the line; or at least that is how I see it based on his really ugly comments. JMO of course.

BadenP: Every time you post your nasty comments on this subject, your theoretical namesake likely rolls over in his grave in Africa. Having his name attached to such bile must be very uncomfortable. For someone professing to be a Christian minister, I wonder why you cannot see your misperception.

Take a look if you might be looking for somewhere not far from L.A. Besides summer camp, they are open to year round use. They do have snow in winter, though is always a roll of the dice. No fires in camp, but have a bowl. Also have other options if you want to invest a bit more, including cabins and dining hall. I will be up there all next week with my own unit and 3 provisional's. http://campthreefalls.blogspot.com/

We have sold greenery at Christmas for many years, getting them until recently from Sherwood Forest. They had an excellent product and were very helpful; but they were inflexible on quantities and case lots. As the unit got smaller, we no longer were able to support their min's. After writing off the profit two years in a row because of the min's, we changed to Mickman in 2010. While we are not making huge profits, we have potential to increase, and Mickman is anxious to help however they can. We definitely would have more profit if we were closer to them though, as the adds about 20% to our base cost, which of course cuts into the profit margin if we are to sell at reasonable prices. But their case lots are much smaller, and they have no min's. More importantly, they have an excellent product choice and also have the conservation link in tree planting related to product sales. Our biggest challenge is simply getting out in front enough to get descent orders, and to get full unit participation. Having popcorn overlapping is a bit difficult as well.

Please explain in non emotional terms why BSA should EVER change the atheist response. God, or specific spiritual belief beyond self, is part of BSA. That is simply the fact. If people do not like that specific element, then they simply can find other avenues. This constant "they need to change because we do not like this or that" is ridiculous. Just MHO of course, and I know there are individuals that somehow think this is wrong. So please, keep your insults or childish remarks to yourselves.

Just wonder what the thoughts are on reincarnating district or community COH's like were common in the 50's and 60's. I remember them being very positive events in local papers, and also made us more aware of other units outside of COR. They often included skits or demo contests, and gave out most awards, including seniority, adult recognition's, and Eagle or Palms.

"Scouting is not mandatory. If you don't like what it believes, go do something else that fits your beliefs. And if you don't live your life according to the tenents of Scouting's beliefs, don't expect to remain part of the organization. Simple." Just responding to Brewmeister Merlyn. Only tangentially connected to your original thread.