skeptic

Moose; Here is your post from the other thread to which I had referred. "The DE should not have the right to remove a volunteer for this.. The Charter Org if they are frustrated with what they might see a an organized mutiny might.. The Council should only have the right to remove people due to crimial records of one type or another.. Period.. Otherwise it is the charter Orgs unit, and they have the right to choose their volunteers.. I would give your Charter Org Rep a jingle, and tell them the story, and get them to put the DE in their place.. Edited to add: Oh yeah they also have the right to kick out any homosexuals & atheists. (This message has been edited by moosetracker) " To me, it appeared you were adding the last, edited line, to make sure this area of contention did not get missed; and it should be kept in the other forum, from my perspective. It certainly will not be a reason for dismissal with which "most" executives would need to deal. And, to me, that entire discussion is primarily a political one, as it is pushed mostly by individuals who have axes to grind and agendas to move forward politically. So, I DO SEE IT as a "politically correct" area of confrontation. Hopefully my comments are a bit clearer now.

http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1876/article_detail.asp#

B.P; not sure why you think I was referring to you in regard to political issues. I was referring to the raising of PC issues as reason for dismissal by a SE; and that was noted by another poster. Your comment is rude; and it does not reflect well on you, IMO.

Appears to me that the same thing is seen in the school student leadership. For whatever reason, there tends to be more girls than boys overall, especially in middle school levels. May be the issue "momof2cubs" notes, or simply a maturity and interest thing. I would go more for the latter in that by the end of high school, there appears to be more male participation in the schools too.

Two comments here. B.P, while I know you were a pro at one time, I believe you are partly muddying the waters in regard to SE only can remove. As noted before, the CO has the final say on unit leadership. As I understand it, they can terminate the individual's membership, at least in their unit, which may be where we are fuzzy. I guess the individual could technically go elsewhere if the SE or other units should choose to accept that. We have dismissed a couple over the years, but we did notify the council and let them know our reasons, and they were removed. I personally would really appreciate NOT HAVING POLITICAL ISSUES BROUGHT UP IN THREADS OUT SIDE OF THAT CATEGORY. We have more than enough opportunity to butt heads there; and comments relating to those issues, outside of there, really should be kept out of other discussions, in my opinion. Thanks to all for considering my comments here.

SM618; You need to understand that "common sense" and "reality" are no longer rational ways to respond. After all, the PC crowd has "all the answers", and "know better" than we "out of touch" commoners. The same empty nest PCers making many of the comments and authoritarian statements, if confronted with "their own sons" being in that unit with an acknowledges Gay would more often than not find a reason to not have the boy in it. What many espouse is totally different than what they will do when confronted with the reality. Again, that is why local CO control should be the rule. Few would survive if they made that choice; certainly they would likely never be highly successful. Your point about starting a separate group that follows similar ideas, other than those awful ones they do not like is valid; but they will not do it, as they really know they are likely to not succeed. For some reason they seem to think they should be able to dictate what others should do and think, rather than simply living their own lives in whatever way they want, while allowing others to do the same. As always, JMO

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.