skeptic

Engineer; When I was a kid, scouts were everywhere; we wore uniforms to school either for special activities or because we were going to scouts after, even in high school. I became completely reinvolved in 1976, and scouting was still fairly prominent. But there was already the negatives from the inner city program and backlash from Viet Nam and any uniformed, civic supporting organization. Saw the disappearance of window displays in stores, partly because of malls, but mostly because of attitude and PC nonsense. Yes, it was already playing its discordance in its own way. Actually, there has always been "some" anti scouting groups; see the attacks by the Communists and so on in the 30's, or the anti-militarism in the teens. Things change, and eventually, with luck, we will adjust. But, just like saying the only way to start a fire is with friction or other "natural way". Even in the infancy of scouts, that "was not" the requirement; it was two matches, because "that" technology was already in use. As pointed out, we can never go back. Yet we can still respect the history, and make current scouts aware of these skills, even while we embrace more modern ones and equipment. If we insist on living in the first half of the 20th century, we really will become lost. JMO

Just my own thought with no known studies with which to support, but I think almost any college grad that had to actually work their way to their degree is likely to succeed at some level. Simply the knowledge gained in having to fend for oneself. Sort of like the scout whose jamboree is given to him, versus the one who had to earn most of it, or not go. Maybe if parents put a condition on their kids that they must earn at least 25%, or more, of their education, the kids would appreciate what they were getting and put in an more honest effort. Of course I mean real work, not a gimme of some family friend or relative. But, just my opinion as someone that would not have gone to college if he had not worked for most of it. My parents basically paid my rent the first month I went away, and fed me when I came home on break. Then, after my time in service, I had G.I. benefits, but still worked almost full time.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

My, My!!! "My child would "never" do such a thing. I was not there, but I know better, because he is my son. I did not raise him that way!" There are crazies in both camps folks. Just admit that not everyone in your sphere of belief is as perfect as you think. Fools abound; and they are not limited by party, age, color, or any other commonly used group dynamic. Both sides of this head butting discussion have valid points. And likely most of those for or against each, are rational and civil for the most part. We seldom take note of the ocean around the cresting wave. Suffice it to say, our representatives are not doing their jobs most of the time; and that includes both sides. It is just tiresome how the idea of common ground is such an anathema to people. For a scouting board, where the posters purport, for the most part, to actually be scouters, some responses are very disappointing. As leaders we need to set good examples. And I hope that some of the things displayed on here are not shared with the youth for whom we are responsible. One of the reasons that political participation in official Scouting capacity is not allowed. Now, maybe it is time for that pie.

Temps in the hundreds is not common at Philmont. Have been there for two treks and 5 training courses, and "never" saw triple digits. Did see "lots" of rain in 1990; monsoon season, and rained 8 of 10 days on the trail, 3 days without let up almost. Learned what it was like to hike in a sauna. Still would not trade the experiences there for much. It is a spectacular place, and well worth the efforts. Hope to maybe get back before I get so old I cannot walk; but only for training. No more treks for me. Wish I could see a real trip to The Summit in my future; but again, would likely only be a training course at this point in my life. Do not hold much hope for attending in 2013, unless I get my physical being into better shape and find solutions to some chronic issues. Our troop is 90 this year, and we still have some old equipment I use for displays. In the 30's and 40's they build wood frames, then used diamond hitches to tie their gear on the frames; most used blanket roles in a horseshoe over the top. When I was an explorer in the late 50's, I had an old "official" explorer frame from BSA. Do not know what happened to that, but wish I had it for my collection today. Historical research will show that while scouts in the early days definitely walked and hiked more than we do today, in many respects, they also used pack animals and trek carts, or drove to a base camp. We have photos in our archives of the old truck they used in our first couple of decades. It had special boxes that fit over the wheels on the flat bed, with a third one between the sides against the cab. The doors were on chains that dropped down when the sides of the truck were removed. They would drive to the end of the road in the mountains above our area, and then camp. The boxes had staples and cooking materials. They took rifles and fishing gear to supplement the staples. Personal gear went in the middle, and they climbed in on top. G2SS people would have had a stroke. Even in the 50's we still rode in backs of trucks on top of gear; not that we were particularly smart to do so. It was just the way it was. I have an old book about scouting in the Chicago area in the first decade. It talks about walking to the edge of town and jumping the train to the countryside, then hiking to a spot to camp. Even talks about sending scouts to farm houses to ask for food. We have much for which we should be thankful. In many respects, our loud voices here about how awful the modern program is are just "wrong". Much of what Scouts and Ventures do today would have been considered impossible or simply crazy in the early days. Approaches to adventure change with the times. We either learn to adapt, or we fail to succeed. Not too many of today's scouts or scouters would choose to hike the areas many do using what was available in the first few years. JMHO

If the two "controlling parties" did not have a lock on any "real" political power, we might see them all replaced by other groups; but the other parties really have very poor chances in most cases. Part of that may be the odd choices so often running; but a lot has to do with their simple lack of exposure and financial backing.

For those who may read Scouts-L; been a very good discussion about this, as well as now, the "new" Eagle workbook. Have to go take a direct look at that; but there appears to be a few "major" course corrections and so on relating to contracts, money raising, and filing a "tour plan".

The third part of explanation for active. It appears they are giving more leeway to the unit to determine "their criteria". But they also seem very specific regarding the scout using bits and pieces to meet the overall requirement. 3. The Scout meets the units reasonable expectations; or, if not, a lesser level of activity is explained. If, for the time period required, a Scout or qualifying Venturer or Sea Scout meets those aspects of his units pre-established expectations that refer to a level of activity, then he is considered active and the requirement is met. Time counted as active need not be consecutive. A boy may piece together any times he has been active and still qualify. Alternative to the third test if expectations are not met: If a young man has fallen below his units activityoriented expectations, then it must be due to other positive endeavors in or out of Scoutingor to noteworthy circumstances that have prevented a higher level of participation (see below). In this case a Scout is considered active if a board of review can agree that Scouting values have already taken hold and been exhibited. This might be evidenced, for example, in how he lives his life and relates to others in his community, at school, in his religious life, or in Scouting. It is also acceptable to consider and count positive activities outside Scouting when they, too, contribute to his growth in character, citizenship, or personal fi tness. Remember; it is not so much about what a Scout has done. It is about what he is able to do and how he has grown. There may be, of course, registered youth who appear to have zero level of activity. Maybe they are out of the country on an exchange program, or away at school. Or maybe we just havent seen them and wonder if theyve quit. To pass the fi rst test above, a Scout must be registered. But he must also have made it clear through outright participation or by communicating in some way that he still considers himself a member, even thoughfor nowhe may not meet full expectations. A conscientious leader might make a call and discover the boys intentions. It appears that they have actually listened and tried to meet expectations of adults and scouts, including allowing some flexibility and broader definition of "active".(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Normal Adolescent merit badge. Speaks for itself.

Seattle; quit horsin around.

Trouble is that my Republican rep simply ignores what I ask and sends canned responses, often unrelated to the comments I wrote. He votes straight party line 99% of the time, even though our area is split almost evenly between the two parties. Of course, I have not voted for him the past three elections; but he wins anyway. Will be interesting to see what happens now that California has redrawn the districts without the past gerrymandering. Rumor has it that he may not run next time, due to the changes in his territory.

Basement; yes, if you are able. Beavah; guess the same goes for elf bowling. The PETA, or similar org, must have stepped in to get rid of it at Christmas. Understand that it was found to be corrupted.

Taking shoes from horses is inhumane and violates the fifth point of the Scout Law. Before throwing the shoes, they must be documented to have not been taken from an unwilling horse.

Found a small ribbon patch inside a scouting pamphlet I bought, and was not able to identify for sure what it was. Just received another SCOUTING MAGAZINE for my collection, September, 1943, and found the details of the item in a section called "Scout War Service". Have posted a copy of that page, and the patch/ribbon on the Facebook page for this site. Also found a link, once I had the name of the organization, "The Junior Service Corps", sponsored by the Office of Civilian Defense. Here is the link with some info on that, and a picture of the ribbon; http://www.vintagekidstuff.com/jcsc/jcsc.html Take a look if you are interested.

After the first few so called debates, I would think we may need to rename this thread; The Republican Mine-field".

Wow Kudu; it took you 2 whole days to chime in with your standard opinion. Thought you had gone on vacation.

You know Eamonn, I can see you eventually retiring and spending time sitting cross legged on the top of a mountain.

Yep, I have had a couple of contacts from the site. I went in and fixed it to come to me, gave our troop site, and so on. We need everything we can, as we are the smallest troop, as well as oldest in the city. Where once we "were" the unit to come to, now we are on the "wrong end" of town, so to speak, and they tend to go to the other end where all the other units are. Have put out the info on how to edit the site, but we are still the only Boy Scout unit to have done it. Fine with me, even if it only gets a few to us. I have my troop email, and so I get the direct contact. Now I have to get the pack we are working on to get signed up. Like the idea of schools served; will work with them to do that. We are merging our almost defunct pack with another small one that started meeting at our church after they lost their meeting site. We have convinced them to come to our church as sponsor, and simply choose one or the other number, since they are meeting together now.

Really no reason they could not continue with a physical roundtable, but broadcast it at the same time to those that want to use that method, or are unable to be there for this particular meeting. The technology is available, though many still do not use it, or understand it. Not sure we would see any better participation one way or the other. If you are too busy to go to a meeting, you may be too busy to go to one on-line. Hard to say. But, the biggest issue is loss of the fellowship element. Face to face is still the part of RT that is best for many of us.

As far as UUA is concerned, I had an interesting experience related to it at Jambo in 2010. They had a booth at the midway with the other COR presences. I stopped and talked with them a bit, and the person there said that the issues were in the past, and that the conflict had been mostly the result of one or two of their more didactic leaders who overstepped their positions. Once calmer heads got involved, they worked out the issues with BSA to both of their acceptance. Only here-say, but seems to fit current climate.

For a bit more moist and clingy cake, add a box of instant pudding of choice, though vanilla or lemon work well. Also, a bit of the juice helps with less expensive cakes. Of course this discussion really belongs elsewhere, and probably extends one already here somewhere.

It is definitely due to pollution I feel, as well as to over medicating instead of letting natural immunity build up. Someone with better access might find some of the studies done on this, but I remember having read a few of them over the years. The earliest ones were actually more related to the effects of mustard gas in WWI, but the greater levels of breathing issues in large urban areas is documented. I have over 20 years on you, and watched the Southern California area slowly lose its clear skies due to the constant increase in air contamination from vehicles, as well as many factories spewing stuff, like the refineries in El Segundo. It of course is exacerbated by far too many vehicles and over-population. Even with the better combustion forced by newer regulations, and the catalytic devices, the sheer number of trucks and poorly maintained vehicles works against clean air. If we had the same constraints with half the population, we likely would have much less concern. No, I am not willing to get rid of my car, but I drive one that gets better than average mileage, and I expect the industry to continue to find ways to improve their efficiencies to make up for that one millionth of cleaner air lost to current standards, and to quit looking for ways around, rather ways to improve. As far as scientists are concerned, they should be apolitical if they are to be true to their research. But, just like economists or statisticians, too many can be bought and paid for by whomever wants a particular viewpoint pushed. On the other hand, I really do not have issues with extracting more oil on our own, building more refineries, or utilizing other proven energy sources; I just want them to operate as cleanly as possible, and not pollute the environment. Use some of their exorbitant profits to find solutions to emissions, improve cleanup methods when things happen, and put "real" money into research for better technologies. I also wish the overreaching eco nuts would be a bit more realistic too. Some resources are renewable, so there is nothing wrong with carefully using them, but replacing them as we do. On the other hand, we need to not destroy our National Parks at the expense of avarice and ignorance. The extremists are the biggest enemies we have, unless we stop letting them scare us, demand they have a modicum of civility, insist on compromise when feasible, and start simply using common sense. Enough; my cynicism is starting to rear.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Brent; do not know how old you are, but I can assure you that air pollution is very real. I watched smog and other pollutants get worse and worse for years, and they are still far above levels of when I was a kid. Environmental laws work, and are responsible for the improvements over the past 20 years; but there is a long way to go. Proof of the problem is the huge growth in lung related problems with the younger generations as compared to adults who did not grow up with the same levels during critical developing years. When I was in high school in the desert you could see the ridges along the Colorado River from our house, over a hundred miles away. Now, much of the time, there is so much air material that you are lucky to see half that distance, even on the best days. One of the things that led to forests in Southern California becoming infested with insects was their being weakened by smog. When I worked for the FS in 1969-71 in the San Bernardino NF, you could mark the level of smog by the health of the trees; there was a distinct difference in the foliage above 5,000 feet. But regulation does not harm the industry in the long term, other than cutting into their profits and the pay of the upper tier management. Short term profit at the expense of the future generations' health is just as bad as perpetuating the debt onto our grandkids, maybe even worse. A spectacular example of what a relatively simple regulation can do was demonstrated in England, specifically London. When they banned the burning of coal without air filters and use of the poorest grades of coal altogether, they eliminated the infamous black fogs of London. It was caused by coal dust suspended in the air that collected moisture, causing the dense fog, and all kinds of lung issues. No one there would want to go back to that type of thing; and we should want to eliminate pollutants today for the same reasons. Just think, Boyce might not have gotten lost had they already banned the coal burning.(This message has been edited by skeptic)(This message has been edited by skeptic)

You simply have to supervise, and be "aware" of things. And never FORCE a scout to do something unless it is for his own safety in an emergency. If someone is reluctant, you take him aside and briefly discuss; but if he still simply does not want to do it, then he doesn't. Again, simply do your job as a leader, and get to know your kids. Try to assure it does not get out of hand, and make sure that those involved running it do not get over zealous or step over the line somehow. If they do, you need to bring it to an end at once, and separately discuss why, possibly as a group, and maybe independently with the junior leaders. JMO

While I personally feel we overreact to much of this stuff, and call it something it really isn't, we still need to be careful. And part of that comes down to us as leaders knowing a boy well enough "before" subjecting him to possible embarrassment and emotional or physical discomfort. This is especially true of new boys. "If" you decide to do a snipe hunt, you need to try to assure that the joke recipient(s) will not be overly upset with the possible outcomes. You also need to make sure that the final resolution "does not" result in the type of thing noted by OGE. That really was on the adult leaders, as they either used poor judgment, or worse, somehow lost track of a scout. The last snipe hunt we had, I made sure that all participants, those that knew, and those that did not, or thought they did, understood this might lead to some embarrassment, and also let them know they did not "have" to participate. One opted out, so he just sat and watched. Later, he was disappointed he had not joined in. Always that fine line. And we, as leaders, need to be particularly aware of what is going on so we can interject ourselves if necessary to tone it down, making sure it stays within common sense bounds. JMHO as an "Old Guy"