skeptic

Personally, I would not be averse to having us go back to the time when we were not the defender (supposedly, but really a lot of political economics involved) of the world; where our assistance to other countries, especially developing countries, was limited to the lend a hand mode; where our priorities and financial resources (of the government) were used to improve our own country's infrastructure and schools; where rights were not so skewed to the "me/mine" idea. Many of our problems today are directly related to the very thing Eisenhower warned against. Add the oil, pharmaceutical firms, and big financial groups to his areas of concern. We cannot ignore the rest of the world; but we still need to focus more on our own issues, and far less on those of other countries. Certainly the military has its place, and we need to be able to properly defend ourselves should the "real need" occur. But think about it; every missal shot could pay for a new school; every plane lost is a cost that could rebuild hundreds of miles of highway; every soldier lost leaves not only grief, but financial hardship in many instances for the families; and the injuries to those not killed, cost even more problems both for the families, but for the society struggling to support their therapies. The monies used in Afghanistan war; how much more effect might they have had if we had used them "to teach them to fish"? Nothing is simple, especially in the almost totally linked world through modern technologies; but it just seems to me that we have lost sight of the things most important, especially on the governmental levels. We, as citizens of the United States, still appear to still be some of the most giving and "lend and hand" people of the world. This is seen by the continued efforts of the rank and file citizens to lend aide when major disasters occur. That is the face we should have focused on the world theater, in my opinion. Yes, I know! I am thinking in a naive way, actually believing we are better than we present ourselves. Maybe if we, as a people, actually lived our lives more in line with the "Scout Law", things would be less fractured and contentious. One can dream! One of the perks of being old.

Speaking of arrows. We old guys went through Ordeals where they notched your candidate arrow/stick if members decided you were not meeting the candidate challenges. In our lodge, five notches resulted in likely failure of the induction, though I think they had an appeal process. It occasionally became a problem if not properly overseen by fair minded adults; but rarely did it lead to a real blackball. Yet, that was the main reason the tradition was eliminated. Not sure they accomplished much by doing it, as it contributes to the idea that there are really no consequences to breaking or bending the challenge rules. One of the many things that has changed dramatically since "way back when".

It is interesting to see how broad the project development and completion process can be. Ultimately, it is a very subjective evaluation, but basically will end up with a minimum hour level of 50 to 100 on average. A few will fall lower, either due to poor record keeping (not counting prep hours completely, or forgetting to log scouts); an absolute minimal, rush project; or a super organized scout with the ability to get good production with small resources. Then there are the "super" projects that seem to multiply exponentially as they progress, ending up with far more hours than would have occurred had they done what was actually initially proposed. The biggest problem with those is that it can lead to intimidation of later project developers, thinking they have to reach "that" level. Then there are the truly unique, inventive projects that generally end up being both large hour producers, definitely newsworthy, and occasionally continue to grow and perpetuate themselves far beyond the initial project. An example is the Bible project of a few years back. Of course, I suspect that every council/district has those "pattern" projects, such as the park kiosks that we have six to ten of some years. They are good basic projects, but often are short on real development by the later scouts who choose them; and they often are repeated within the same unit a number of times, just in a different place. Another in our area the past few years is the school garden project; a place for elementary students to learn about plants and growing stuff. We, as mentors, need to accept that every potential Eagle is different, and has his own level of self accomplishment and "doing his best". But as long as the project meets the requirement, we should not subvert the actual intent. Ultimately, the scout will know when he did not do as well as he could have, or really did not measure up to the intent. Yet, sometimes that leads to his growth as he matures, or as he realizes how his project compares to another friend's. Every success is measured in the minds of the person involved, and in the minds of those making judgments. We need to simply do what we can to encourage, but overcome our own inclinations to take over or brow beat. JMHO

Beavah; I think we know the answer to your last question.

Yes, I have to agree with Desert; when electing actually was choosing someone the troop felt really deserved it. Many probably never even know that at one time there were limits on how many eligible could be elected based on how many met the minimum requirements and also on the size of the unit. And if I remember correctly, a scout only had one vote, not one for each eligible candidate. And of course, there were actual "tap outs", and the Ordeal was far stricter in holding candidates to the challenges. I was a Life scout and 15 when I was tapped out. It really meant more then I think. But maybe it is just nostalgia.

Have been trying to update advancement material on-line, but kept getting last year's roster, which included a dropped scout, and did not have recently added names. Finally figured out that I had to log in, then reload; check, then reload a second time. But the names finally came up right. Still not sure why it would not automatically update with recharter. Also, been two weeks since I added one, and he still does not show. So have to wait to file his Scout on-line. Oh well; at least the rest is okay for now. Oh, also continues to carry aged out scouts; guess I will have to either transfer to adult, or drop. Fun and games with computer helpers.

http://www.leprogres.fr/france-monde/2011/04/17/3-000-boyscouts-americains-soutiennent-l-inscription-d-omaha-beach-a-l-unesco Here is a general translation using Google. Some 3000 U.S. Boy Scouts have formed yesterday in humane letters the message "Normandy, Land of Liberty"in Saint-Laurent-sur-Mer, Omaha Beach included in town, one of five landing beaches on 6 June 1944. The rally, initiated by the association "Boy Scouts of America" is intended "to support the candidacy of Lower Normandy (a) the registration of the landing beaches to World Heritage by Unesco. A dozen veterans who landed on the Normandy beaches in June 1944 (Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword Beaches) attended the gathering.

Not sure how helpful, or useful, it may be, but Legoland in the San Diego area has a special robotics session you can register fro while there. You MUST sign up for it, as it is very popular apparently. They plan and design a robotic device, as I understand it. Anyone out there take advantage of this? Is it offered at any other locations?

"The boys are having fun." What else needs to be said?!

SR540; I think you are not getting what Lisa says. She does not feel that the people who simply refuse to make any effort for themselves should be given a free ride, she is saying that most of the burden is being made to fall on those in the lowest echelon of income, or who, due to age or "real" physical or emotional problems are not fully able to care for themselves. Perhaps you and your wife pay your fair share, not shopping for every loophole you can find to not pay anywhere near what you likely should. But there are far too many, mostly in the highest levels of income who do just that. And that also includes the most profitable corporations who pay little, or even NO taxes, while shipping jobs out of the country and paying their CEO's and other top "managers(?)" obscene salaries and benefits. Her issue is that most politicians on that side of the argument seem to care little that it is so out of balance, and are unwilling to make even a tiny effort to find ways to solve the inequities. We need to close the gaping loopholes, hold Wall Street and other financial manipulators responsible for their greed, find ways to make ourselves competitive in the international markets without being on the wrong side of the teeter totter, put some common sense back into our educational system, stop squandering monies overseas while our own infrastructures are falling apart and more and more people are sliding into poverty,engineer a fair, yet tough immigration system that rewards those who follow the rules and deters those who do not, develop our own energy supplies in an environmentally safe manner, and redirect our military goals to protect OUR country without getting involved militarily in other international wars. We cannot become isolationist in today's world, but we can focus our outreach to helping and building, not killing and destroying. It is not an easy task. And there are no politicians who have all the answers. But justice is depicted by a scales for a reason. Somehow we need to find that balance within our political system, or we will too soon be another footnote in history. JMPO and Perspective

So, even though they still are only a very small amount compared to what needs to be dealt with, how many billions have now been theoretically cut in the series of extensions. As I understand it, each extension has included some cuts, so we need to add them together. We must be close to that 100 billion that has been bandied about? I tend to agree with Pack on this. Someone on PBS just said that what we need in the budget and government is a "heart transplant", not just temporary stints.

They had the pamphlet at our store on Monday; so guess it is already in the field.

What is the point of this thread? This has been discussed "ad infinitum" here already. Call it whatever you want, but teach them a method that works. EDGE is one type, but similar models work well too. The main intent is for a scout to understand how to pass a skill on to another scout, demonstrate that knowledge directly, and be able to explain it. WHY ARE WE NOT ABLE TO SIMPLY ADJUST OURSELVES TO THE VERBIAGE AND RUN WITH WHAT WORKS WITHIN THE GENERAL INTENT? LEARN TO NOT TAKE EVERYTHING "LITERALLY", PLEASE! Yes, I am raising my voice. Everything does not need to be a problem. Use some rationality and work with it. Off the soapbox.

Pack; You have me confused with someone else, though I actually did read condensed bio's of Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tito, and a few others when I was studying that period of history. It is interesting to realize how far the AXIS propaganda arm reached, and also a reflection of our country's freedom that they were able to actually publish such material, as well as hold rallies. Fortunately, that same freedom likely made their success pretty limited, as even then their actions in Europe and Indo-China were becoming fairly well publicized here. Related is the story of the underground scouting in the countries directly effected by the war. I had the privilege in the late 70's of knowing a Polish gentleman and his wife who were both involved in the Polish underground through scouting. He became a pilot flying out of Britain, and she was captured and survived one of the camps. But he was the Polish equivalent of an Eagle prior to the upheaval. They were involved in a group at the time that kept the Iron Curtain scouting programs alive in free countries. Here they had to be members of BSA, but then joined the unit from their cultural background. They learned the language, customs, and reproduced the uniforms from that lost scouting tradition. Went to a gathering in the San Fernando Valley they held which included Polish, White Russians, Czechs, and two or three other Slavic groups. It was a great experience; and the dedication and focus of the youth surprised me, I have to admit. Do not know if the group still exists since he supposed end of the Cold War.

Got a district/council one. Some pointed questions, and opportunity to expand if you choose to rate below average. Will see if it makes any difference.

Just received the propaganda piece, "America's Answer", that I found on eBay. What a truly amazing piece of scouting history. Not only is it a response to a difficult time in our history, but it exposes you to how BSA was being attacked directly by certain elements, and Scouting being subverted or driven underground in many parts of the world. Are some interesting historical notes regarding this with a Google search. Here is a link should you be interested. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma04/wood/mot/html/neutrality.htm Scroll down to 1939. Note the photo on the right, #9, which actually shows the item I just purchased.

"If upon review a boy tells me "Sir, I forgot what it stands for, but I taught all the kids in my NSP how to secure the ropes on the trebuchet that launched a nalgene from our patrol site into SM Kudu's tent." Guess who's advancing to the next rank with no further questions?" No problem here; I agree. Just a formality to encourage more advanced scouts to "be prepared" should the direct question be proffered. The real question should be; Tell us how you might teach a new skill to another scout or individual.

Now I am starting to measure it by my ability to still get out of bed and go down stairs to retrieve the paper. (:-}>

So, what we really have here is a "specific requirement" with a name, EDGE. Does it really mean they must do it exactly as described? From my perspective, NO. As usual, the people making these things up have a good intention; that is to "require" boys learn a viable teaching method and how to apply it. That being said, it seems that is what they should have written, or said. So, use whatever form of teaching that works, but make passing the skill on to the boys part of the advancement. Call it EDGE, or just teaching. Once they have the ability, then make sure they know what EDGE means in case someone gets "technical" with them in a review (though that might be retesting?). Just my take on this whole thing. It is really a non issue.

Still do not know where these large quantities of scouts are that "do not camp". Unless you are insistent that the only real camping is to hike in, then I would say 95%+ troops camp, and 60-70% camp almost monthly, or other similar outdoor day activities. Many do more than one a month; and the "super troops" usually do two or three major high adventure activities as well. If the "scouts do not camp" complainers are referring to cubbing, then they are misplacing their concern. But in our area, cub camping is not uncommon on the family level; and most do day hikes to nature related activities a number of times a year. Yes, it is possible for a boy scout to squeak by to Eagle without any significant camping experience; but unless the troop is simply ignoring "all" the requirements, even he will have had more than most kids not in the program.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Merlyn; It continues to amaze me how you can twist anything to fit your point of view and crusade. You appear to miss my point completely. And, as I said, it is my opinion. Has nothing to do with "your" viewpoint; only that "threats" are used as tools to scare groups and government, who have limited funds for such things, into not defending the cases due to cost. Many of the "settled" suits would end up being won if they were to go to the end; but since the loser does not have to pay the defense, it is just too costly and time consuming. I have no hope that you will actually acknowledge my point. And this will be my only response to you regarding it, as even this is really pointless. Good day.

"(though usually the threat of a lawsuit is enough). " Ah, here is the bludgeon so popular with the PC groups, especially with government. Also a favorite tactic by questionable lawyers seeking settlements against perceived deep pockets. Why? Because they know it is generally far less expensive to settle than stand up to them. The need to change the way these suits are handled has been bandied about already. Seems we would be far better off with the litigant responsible for "all" costs, should they lose. And judges need to have the power, reason, and fortitude to throw many of them out to start with. Again, JMHO.

From my perspective, BSA is on much firmer ground on the spiritual issue, as its removal basically makes BSA just another youth group. The idea that you can allow the small minority of non spiritual people to be members (assuming they are open about their beliefs) is counter to the very foundation of Scouting. The other other issue is more difficult, as it is something that really should simply not be on the table. That is why I continue to feel the decision should be the CO's, as it is their unit. Those that might allow it would likely remain very small, or simply fade away, in my opinion (again, making the assumption that somehow it is an "avowed" individual). When push comes to shove, no matter what the non involved PC opinions are, when confronted directly, most would quietly find a reason to remove their child from the group, or at least I feel that is the likely outcome. But, similar responses would likely happen with other "avowals" of generally uncomfortable life choices and interactions with those individuals, whether as leaders, or simply direct contact. But, as we have said, we are not going to solve the issue here. And continuing to rehash it is not particularly useful. At some point, hopefully, the Gay issue will evolve, just as the "Negro" issue did, and other less noted conflicts within the outreach. I fully expect BSA to incorporate fully coed groups sooner than later, but with the choice of all of one gender, or mixed. These are just opinions and observations from close to 50 years in the program. Others will differ; and that is their right.

Moose; I suspect that in most councils, the idea that COR's will actually take their job seriously is the SE's biggest nightmare. Sorry to say that, but in rare instances, COR's acting in majority, have been know to force major changes, and even firing of SE"s and other lower professional staff. Of course, most COR's either do not understand they have a vote, or just do not really care. They can be difficult to even locate at times. End user, the kids, is what would be a great "ideal". An executive board made up of "involved" individuals for the most part, rather than "political" members would go a long way to alleviate many issues I think. Our annual meetings seldom have more than maybe 30% of the total board, past or being seated, at the event. It is obvious who really are the leaders and go to members. Fortunately at the moment, we appear to have people at the top who are actually "involved". But there are a lot of fuzzy concerns that get fuzzy answers in the council. I worry about what may be hiding just beneath the surface; but I only have longevity, not financial or political clout. We persevere, trying to focus on the kids.

We have their materials and uniforms in our store. Apparently we are one of the few places in Southern California to have them. Store manager says she has sold things to people from as far away as the Bay area. But it seems to be slowly growing based on the interest shown.