skeptic

Two thoughts, or questions to ponder. How much effect does the project have on the age of attainment? Remember, no projects were required until circa 1965; and initially, they were not quite as specific in regard to requirements. On the other hand; are adult Eagles, those that earned it as an adult when it was still allowed, factored into the data. Also, when you consider that you had to be 12 to join until the 40's, then the age difference is even wider. Still, much of it has to do with maturity I would have to agree. Kids are so over protected and under challenged by things that encourage self confidence and mental maturity that they are seldom equipped to meet even basic realities of adulthood, even at 18. Of course much of this is already being discussed in other threads, or has been.

Base'; I hear you. We are the only troop on the west end of our city, which once was the core, but is now the "poor" end of town. We have not had younger males available to do the proper outdoor program for 10 years; our parents are wonderful, but either no male in the home, or have things that make them unable to be involved except peripherally. Same goes for the cub pack that meets at our location. As such, we struggle to have a decent program in both units. And ours could be the next one of those about which Lisa speaks; we are very old, but we cannot draw the kids from the packs due to our small size and lack of extended program. I truly do not know if we will make it to our centenary,(we are in our 91st year), as I really need to have a replacement due to my own age and its related problems. The large troops with the "younger" males stay large, while we struggle. Do not have the answer; just hope I find one. The best thing we have going is our meeting place; it is like a museum. But, of course, the interest in history by younger people is not as strong as it once was either.

Take away access to questionable video games, TV hypnosis, and delusions that every kid can become a professional sports player of some type so they might be involved simple playing for the "fun" of it. In the hay-day of Scouting, Little League barely existed, and there were few other sports for youth. High school sports had restrictions on how much training could be required in the off season by schools, and of course TV and computers were pretty basic and a minor distraction. Kids also were encouraged to simply play outdoors, often until dark; then simply were called home, or went there due to darkness. The paranoia about something awful happening to kids was not there, and of course the traditional family was more outwardly cohesive, with one parent at home much of the time; and even those that had two parents working, had relatives and neighbors watching out for the kids. And of course, the contradictory attitudes towards foul language, suggestive dress, and easy exposure to "very adult" things in magazines and movies was far less accepted. Also, kids were not so often "labeled" in school and society, and getting in trouble in school or on the streets was more likely to bring home punishment, as well as that given out by a teacher, principle, or official. Kids had more respect for adults, and also possibly for themselves; at least in appearance. And, most understood that you had to actually "earn" your way and were far less likely to callously waste food or be frivolous with possessions. Scouting will not likely ever grow substantially in the culture of today, because they still have the audacity to at least try to have standards to which members should aspire. Again, simply MHO.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Caleco; I think the difference may be that in the other instances, they were ordered released to the defense, but not publicly. Not sure, but seems to me this is the first "public" release order.

Can anyone say "McMartin"? Why is it that we do not learn from such fiasco's? Now the "witch hunt" is to open to whomever might likely profit from it, mostly lawyers with questionable ethics. As pointed out; how many individuals who were never prosecuted for whatever reason held sway at the time of the accusation or suspicion will now be dragged through the mud? How many victims will be accosted by things they may have finally dealt with and moved on from? Redacting victims is only asking the "diggers" to find them by other methods; but they will search, that can be almost guaranteed. We continue to have some that think somehow we can make positive changes to difficult earlier traumas that were dealt with as the society generally acted at the time, but now do not conform. At some point, ALL of this should be allowed to remain in the past. Now, I could see the usefulness of using completely redacted files to examine responses at the time as guides as to how better to deal with similar issues today. That makes sense to me. But, as I have noticed; much of what seems sensible or pertinent to me in relation to these emotional subjects do not seem to much credence in these discussions. Whether that is because few here feel they are worth consideration, or they are so close to reality that they cannot be dissed very successfully, so do not fit in to the propensity to obdurate hysteria, I cannot surmise. Whatever, I personally find these continued negative decisions to be invasive at least, and certainly overboard as far as their reach and the "emotional compensation".

One of the aspects of this discussion seldom touched on is the reality of early pubertal children, especially boys. Having spent many hours in many schools as a sub for 14 years now, I have noted that kids in grades starting at about 3rd or 4th, but especially in middle or junior high levels, are almost manic about "gays being unacceptable". Boys are particularly obsessed with making sure people do not think they are gay, and also in their abhorrence of the idea. This observation contradicts the statements about acceptance, at least at this stage in development. As such, it is certainly a reason to seriously consider the strictures on leadership now in place. That is not to say they will not grow out of this paranoia eventually, and that some may not eventually decide they really are gay; but confusing them even more at that age may not be constructive in the short term. Girls at this age do seem less likely to be put off by lesbians, at least they are far less vocal it appears. Whether due to being female, or because women being together long ago became normal in our society, so pretty much lost its public stigma; though even in the past, there were some who gossiped about the "old maid" couple down the street. But the stigma was far less damaging because of the strictures segregating the genders at that time. If they chose to be blatant about their "lifestyle", then they became scandalous and were shoved to the fringes of the community. Another cultural change, in our country especially, is the continued almost prudish attitudes relating to public and group interactions of genders, while blatantly dressing as provocatively as possible. School dress codes are not generally strictly enforced for whatever reasons. I know that I personally have on occasion asked a female teacher to deal with a truly serious violation, and do not have any problem with speaking directly to boys; but the fact that parents allow it anyway, even with the so called codes, is reflective of how contradictory we are. Yet, kids are no longer required to actually shower in gym; we make every effort to make sure that adults and children are not exposed physically in public dressing rooms and so on, even if the same gender; and we continue to allow more and more provocative exhibitions in movies and tv, as well as sexual and violent activities. So, basically, we tend to only confuse kids in general in regard to sexually related issues, and even the boundaries related to speech and violence. These are simply observations. But in regard to this thread, I too agree the issue should be a local one so we can at least maybe deal a bit more easily with it when necessary. Also, I truly wish that somehow the media would stop applying their comments to youth members. There IS NO BAN ON YOUTH members relating to this; it is on LEADERS.

By the year 2015, all advancement can be completed on-line so scouts do not have to waste their time going to meetings and outings. That includes Eagle; but the candidate must upload a video, no longer than 5 minutes, of his project being accomplished and completed. Virtual camping will become the only camping requirement, though they can still count actual outdoor camping, as long as they document it with photos or video. All high adventure activities will also be interactively available.

Tampa; did he ask about the "slip"? Just wondered.

It appears I was not the only one that hit send a number of times without apparent results yesterday evening. Perhaps, if one has the time, a monitor might remove the duplicate entries in the various threads. Just a thought. Thanks.

Sorry; already have the 100th anniversary ring or 2010 jambo one. No more changes.

Like many of the newer tech options, Be A Scout is so obtuse in its design that many cannot figure it out, so just ignore it. It does not help that there is an almost unknown link in My Scouting to Be A Scout that allows unit personalization. Fixing the inefficiencies of many of the on-line programs and so on would go a long way in improving those areas for which they were implemented in the first place. All of us continue to get frustrated with the tech problems, and strange twists in the designs of many.

BD; Not sure where you looked, but here is a fairly accurate list. A couple from the old AFL, and some from way back. Also three head coaches. At least one Hall of Fame. Deuce Lutui; Offensive Lineman; Arizona Cardinals. Played in two Super Bowls. John Beck; QB; Dolphins and Ravens Kirk Chambers; Offensive Tackle; Browns and Bills Austin Collie; Wide Receiver; Colts. Greg Lashutha; AFL Buffalo Bills; only one year, playing on practice teams. Scott Mitchell; QB; Dolphins, Baltimore, Detroit, and Cincinnati. Tom Mack; Offensive Guard; Los Angeles Rams. In Hall of Fame. Chan Gailey; Head Coach; Dallas and Buffalo. Ray Malavasi; Head Coach; Broncos, L.A. Rams. Ken Whisenhunt; Head Coach; Cardinals. Two Super Bowls. While reviewing the list for these, I also noted at least a couple of pro basketball players, as well as a couple baseball pros. Also couple other sports related individuals from less common ones.

Have to wonder if the coach, assuming he actually said that or something akin to it, is aware that two Eagle Scouts recently played in a Superbowl, one on each team. A little digging, probably in the same school, will likely dig up a number of scouts that also are starters on some team, or high level performers in other one on one competitions. I have had two water polo captains ( one who also was student body president at the same time while graduating 5th out of about 800 and getting a full academic scholarship), a number of CIF level wrestlers, though they eventually did quit due to their own decisions, but still in high school, and have sat on a number of Eagle boards of scouts from other units who were high level athletes in local high schools. But, have also had my share dropping out due to sports and peer pressure. Glad to hear BD say he will not speak to anyone at the school until after the season, so not to hurt the young man's chances. Took me almost ten years to really understand we do not win them all. But, sometimes, we win some of which we are unaware and find out down the line. Have had the privilege of that a few times. Keep doing it with the right ideas in mind. Take a break if needed, but please do not give it up all together.

Am confused again. NOAC and Jamboree, are not troop events. Like any activity, if it is important to the scout, then he likely will find a way to fund it. But,the decision is that of each individual whether or not to participate in these types of events. Now, a council charging extra fees of some sort in order to approve that participation is flat wrong. And they should be brought up short as soon as possible. How that might be done can be discussed.

Okay, doing some more search on the NEW form, as well as reviewing the on-line manual, I can find nothing in the either the FAQ's or the GSS regarding the first aid items. Also, interesting that the still available paper version does not have anything about that either. Also, it is obvious that they expect fewer to be filed, since it in not absolutely required for much of the normal activities anymore. Whether local councils will still require it for everything is doubtful, as they surely would prefer to have one less thing to deal with. May have found my own answer. I did not miss something; they simply have messed it up again with the on-line version.

Okay, I just played with filling an on-line plan with the newest link through National. Couple of things that caught me off guard. It asks for all the adults, both registered and not. Then it says the non-registered does not have a current Youth Protection. Are they saying we are going to have to try and get every adult that goes to take the on-line YP training? How does it show as taken if they do not have a registration number? I can live with asking the non-registered that participate to take the training; but the other is a mystery, since they will not be on file, unless they will have a record of non-registered individuals as well. The other one is that now they are stating, in red, that there MUST be one adult along that has first aid and CPR certification. While I have taken these numerous times, I am not currently up to date due to the cost factor; the price just keeps going up. And none of my other adults are either. My understanding was that it was recommended, but NOT an absolute, unless a high adventure activity or over 500 miles or a long term. We have a few trainings scheduled later this year on the council level, but not until fall. Am I missing something? Oh, and the final page has a place for the individual filing to certify that any problems noted will be corrected prior to the actual trip. Since the YP was in yellow, and the first aid and CPR were in red. So, if you DO NOT fix the items they note, but go anyway, does that supposedly take BSA out of the liability loop?(This message has been edited by skeptic)

The previous form was a "fillable PDF" and if saved only needed dates and things changed. So, if you do it once, then save it someplace, you should be able to pull it up and make the minor changes, then save with a new name. I have a permit file for them now. Have yet to go and update to the newest form; but our council still accepts the 2011 version. Have to update soon though.

No more so than schools that give pizza or ice cream parties to students meeting certain goals. Those who do not, mostly because they do not try, stay in class when the others are given their reward. Might consider doing something with those not involved while the others are in a separate area. Other than that, would not see a real problem.

Tahawk; See if you have a paper and ephemera collector in your area. If you were in Southern California near me, you would be welcome to go through my material, some of which dates to the first two decades. But, it is not something easily shared without direct contact. There are not a great many collectors of this type of material, but they are out there. If you are near Dallas, you might try and see if they might allow access to their literature files. Also is a lot in the Seton Library at Philmont, though do not know if it has to do with your area of interest. Good luck.

I keep a separate car and license info sheet and say see attached. Then, even if the drivers change, we still have the info. Also keeps me from having to type in that info.

Hmmmm; wonder why BadenP's post does not surprise me. His negativeness in general is becoming very annoying. Or at least to me. Not a good Scouter attitude IMHO; maybe needs to reconsider his username, as his general demeanor is not indicative of the founder.

"I still want to know whether the "important papers" skit is banned now.) ". Supposedly this no longer meets the "standard"; but I continue to see it done, so either the judges do not know, or simply look the other way because it is an old favorite. As far as swim checks are concerned, it is a safety issue. As such it is important to do correctly. Still, those giving the checks, and other scouts should not use failure, or falling short of "swimmer" as a reason to belittle another scout. Rather, they should use it as a reason to encourage the scout to work to pass by week's end, if at summer camp, or in the next few weeks if on a short term or troop level. Frankly, I have seen far too many scouts passed that really only got to the beginner level, but the persons in charge chose to let them struggle to completion. These are the boys who refuse to put their faces in the water, flounder or dog paddle for the most part, and cannot float. Part of it also can be cold water and altitude in some cases. I try to get my boys to be prepared for the shock of the cold at most camps, and if at altitude, since we live on the beach, understand they need to take it easy. It is not a race.

Calico; They cannot give you anything of veracity; just the made up stuff thrown all over the net, and the negative opinions about such things as his not actually attending the Jambo in 2010. I for one was glad we did not have to deal with the security issues that would have caused; but his taped presentation was supportive, just as much so as others. There are some here that will not like anything he does, even if it was a direct result of a republican suggestion, just because he did it. They will claim they are not prejudiced, but their comments and actions indicate otherwise. It is just sad that we really have had few real choices for leadership at any level beyond local for years. Choose the lesser of the evils, so to speak. Unless we can find some way to get the professional politicians out of control, not much will change, IMO. Similar in a way to much of the difficult to stomach National stuff coming from people with little or no actual Scouting experience, especially in the trenches. Oh well; we still are for the most part run the program locally with very good results.

Old Scout; now I know the real reason snipe hunts are on the no-no list. Too many caught and roasted; so they are endangered. Never realized some had been so successful over the years, as we never were, so unable to sample their succulent, savory meat. Would agree that joining should be completing the app and registering, nothing more. Pullups should be reconsidered for sure, as most kids simply cannot do them, even with a lot of practice. Have even seen some very fit scouts and adults that cannot really do them; part of it is body and muscle structure. Tote-n-Chip should be a tenderfoot basic, or at least the knife part of it.

That's good M; cannot actually respond to the real intent of his question, so twist it to suit yourself. We all know exactly what he was asking; still is male and female, not same gender, whether one or many. Since you are atheist anyway, why would you not want a specific separation of civil and religious marriage? And, since the last couple hundred years have seen government recognize religious marriage, what is so important that the civil contract retain that verbal distinction? Will be interesting to hear your manipulations on this. Have fun. Try not to sputter electronically.