CalicoPenn

"As long as it's at least six hours of work. That's my opinion. In this situation, that's all I can offer you." Since the requirement for Star and Life say take part in service projects (note the plural) totaling 6 hours, why not accept an hour of leaf raking at an elderly neighbors yard as one component of 6 hours of service instead of looking for 6 hours of service raking the neighbors yard? I hated the Bryant answer - yes, the Scoutmaster in that situation (requiring service projects to be part of a Troop service project) may be technically correct, but he would also be really short-sighted and would be putting up another adult barrier to advancement. It may meet the letter of the requirement, but it certainly wouldn't meet the spirit of the requirement, or the spirit of the advancement policy that says that boys earn their ranks at their own pace. If a Troop only does a service project twice a year, couldn't that be seen as holding up a Scout from advancing at his own pace? As for the original posted question - I would say "It Depends". I wouldn't be quick to say no but I wouldn't be quick to say yes - I'd want a little more information on the project - Is it picking up trash in places that an association already or normally pays someone to do? I'd say no - but is it picking up trash along a neglected stream running through the community that isn't typically done? Yeah, I would probably say yes.

The audience can't make the wax firestarters themselves because of the hot wax. Hmmmm....So much for my suggestion of Hawk Throwing. Have you asked the Scouts for their ideas? Have you asked the Scouts if they really want to participate? If they're just hanging around the booth and don't get out an explore before or after their "shifts", that suggests that maybe they're just not interested. Here's a radical suggestion (but it will take some tech wizards to help set it up) - Set up a big screen TV hooked up to a wi-fi enabled computer in the booth - man it with some of the parents - in the meantime, take the Troop camping - then live-stream the camping trip right to Scout-O-Rama.

Yes - in my college backpacking class one of our assignments was to try to figure out ways to lighten the load. One of the vegetarians in the class thought of cutting the corner off a bag of kidney beans and filling it with water to soak the beans. She was thinking just like you. It worked a treat as the Two Fat Ladies might say except it really worked a trick. After 8 hours the beans had soaked up a lot of the water (they are dry beans - soaking in the water helps to rehydrate them). The bag was bulging to near bursting and the beans were oozing out of the top - those that couldn't "escape" the bag were crushed by their neighboring beans - if you want mashed beans - this will work (unless the bag does actually burst - would hate to have to clean up that mess). There is a solution though. The problem is that the bag the beans come in is too small - so she tried again, this time transfering the beans in to a gallon ziploc - that actually did work well - plenty of room for the beans to expand in to.

And that couldn't be done without the bubble-balls?

My position is we never "punish" a Scout for the actions or inactions of the Adults. The SM told this Scout he didn't need a BOR. Presumably, an Eagle Scout would have read his handbook and have known that he would need a BOR, but at the same time, it would not be unreasonable to believe that the Scoutmaster would be up on the latest advancement requirements and was passing on new requirements that hadn't hit the handbook yet. Frankly, the date of the BOR just isn't that critical for palms - BOR dates are important prior to earning Eagle Scout rank but afterwards, they're just dates on a paper. I would give the Scout the benefit of the doubt over the Scoutmaster's mistake and date the BOR for 5 weeks prior.

So what scouting skill, or any skill for that matter, was learned by running around in the latest fad? Generations of Scouts have gotten along just fine without "bubbleball", I think this generation can get along without it as well. I know, I know - "National is taking away the fun things again". Cry me a river. National has taken the time to actually evaluate this activity from a lot of different angles, and I'm sure that one of those angles is that if they were to approve it for regulation field play, sure enough there will be Scouters out there that will, because it's fun, start hauling these out on camping trips to keep the Scouts entertained and let them run around un-kept fields and roll down hills - I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to be there when some Scout is rolling down a hill and runs over something that punctures this ball and causes it to collapse around the Scout as if he's been wrapped like a mummy and not be able to get there in time to get the Scout out of it before he suffocates. Oh - let me guess - "that'll never happen". Maybe not on a regulation soccer field, but do you really want to be that Scoutmaster that has to tell a Scout's mom that her son died in a stupid accident like that? Give us a good reason for it to be part of the program - and not just "well because it's fun" or "National is just being too cautious" - tell us how this enhances the program and maybe I'll come around - but for now, I support the BSA in this. Yeah, there are some things that are ridiculous (a Webelos can't use a pointed shovel or a wheelbarrow? Really BSA??) but on this, it's much better for them to get ahead of this rather than try to put the plug in the bottle when it becomes common in Scouts. The BSA program is chock-full of activities that can be done - I find it very hard to believe that Scout Units can't find enough in the program to keep Scouts busy without having to do things that aren't part of Scouting.

Stosh - so how does that ignore member thing work again??

To paraphrase "The Avengers": In what way is this a win?

Barry, I'm not looking for the Scouts to define Scout Spirit either - I'm looking for the whole Scout Spirit requirement to go away and be replaced by a much simpler metric of "How have you lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law". If a Scout is acting hostilely to other Scouts, I think the question "How is that following the Scout Oath and/or Scout Law" is a much better question to ask that "How is that showing Scout Spirit". I think asking "How is that Friendly" or "How is that helping other people at all times" are far more powerful questions than asking about Scout Spirit. It's not the Scouts not understanding what Scout Spirit means the worries me - it's the not an insignificant number of adults that we read about on this forum that use Scout Spirit as a cudgel to hold people back for ridiculous things like not wearing a neckerchief or not attending the last meeting that I worry about.

Stosh, I'm with you on living the Scout Oath and the Scout Law - now please explain what that means objectively - how do you measure it - especially if it's self-reporting. I think we could all agree that cheating on a test isn't living up to the Scout Oath or Scout Law but if the Scout is never caught at it, and never self-reports it - how are you going to determine that he's not lived up to the Scout Oath and the Scout Law? I certainly don't disagree with this definition at all but I stand by my statement that the BSA never really defines it objectively - even this definition is nebulous. Do we really need a requirement that says "Demonstrate Scout Spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law" when we have a certain percentage of adults that will grab ahold of that nebulous Scout Spirit concept and run in wild directions with it? Why not a simple and clean "Discuss how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law"? Krampus - Excellent addition - Thank you. Andysmom - I re-read your original post and a couple of additional things popped out at me: A Scout is Loyal. So my question to the CC would be "How are you being loyal to the boys in this Troop?" A Scout is Obedient. My question to the CC would be "How are you being obedient by not following the directions and policies of the BSA?" The Scout Oath and the Scout Law should never be seen to apply to the Scouts only - the adults in the Troop should be following those principles as well. I would hope that one of the things we teach our Scouts is that the Scout Oath and the Scout Law isn't something we do only while we are Scouts but follows us in to our adulthood - even when we are no longer part of Scouting.

How do I say this without being considered unscoutlike? I'm not sure I can but I'll try. I read that thread again. I tried to put myself in to Cyclops shoes over the wording he found offensive - a six word post: "Man creating God in his own image". Cyclops apparently took that as an insult to his religion. I suppose on one level, I can see how one could take it that way. Eagledad simply agreed with it, and Cyclops asked a question about whether Eagledad agreed with the notion that is is unscoutlike to denigrate another's religion then got upset that it wasn't answered with a simple "yes or no". If it was a simple question out-of-the-blue in apropos of anything, I think I would answer yes - but given the context that it was asked, it seems I would also have to agree that "Man creating God in his own image" is also offensive - I doubt that I would have answered yes or no either. Though I can understand why Cyclops might be upset, My response would run less to being insulted and more to "Well of course Man creates God in his own image - almost every religion (certain shamanistic religions and Hinduism excepted) creates God in Man's image". It is a shame that Cyclops has decided just to leave - but plenty of folks have done so before - and people will continue to do so - whether we have an I&P forum or not. I don't support removing the I&P forum from here - it's a good forum for folks to discuss issues that Scouting faces from outside the program. There are times on that forum where there are blatant and obvious personal attacks - those should certainly be moderated - but in this case, is it really a blatant personal attack or just the perception of an attack by the offended party? Perhaps there is also a generational issue going on as well - Emory University has been in the news recently because some of their students got offended because some other presumed students wrote Trump 16 in chalk on sidewalks and the University Administration bent over backwards to offer counseling and otherwise sooth the feelings of the precious little snowflakes (oh well, so much for being Scoutlike). Are there times when it can get out of control in I&P? Sure - but it's usually pretty easy to tell when that happens - the threads end up being a back-and-forth thread war between two people. Is that enough to take it out of this forum? I don't believe so - and I think of it this way - there are people out there demanding that networks stop showing television shows because they find them offensive - and fine, be offended - but their being offended doesn't mean that I, who may not be offended by that show, should be forced to capitulate to their demands - the simple answer is "Then just change the channel" (or just don't read that book, don't listen to that music, etc.). Now granted, this forum is private so there are not real first amendment rights here - but censorship anywhere weakens us all. I think the moderators have already done a lot by no longer letting I&P posts be highlighted on the forum home screen. If threads show up differently for you because of the way you've put together your settings, well that's your responsibility to pay more attention before clicking through. In what may be the ultimate irony of this whole discussion, and perhaps in this whole forum, is that folks have been calling for a the creation of a new forum just for religious discussion for years - and if we had that religious forum, the "offending" thread would most likely have been in that forum and not in I&P. Here we are now, discussing removing I&P for a thread that likely would not have been in the I&P forum had we a religious discussion forum. If we had that forum, would we now be discussing eliminating that one? I'm sorry to see Cyclops leave - I regret that I now think of him as being a tad bit over-sensitive - but I hope that we don't start changing this forum because "some people" may get offended.

Guy from Siam - that is awesome! I hope you don't mind if folks share that around.

I hate the "Scout Spirit" requirement - no one really understands it and the BSA isn't really all that good at explaining what it means objectively which just opens a gate for adults like this CC, who I'm sure is just trying to do his best based on his understanding of the program, to play all sorts of games of mischief with the Scouts advancement. I really wish the BSA would either define it exactly, or dump this stupid requirement. As for this CC, who I'm sure is just trying to do his best based on his understanding of the program (have I satisfied all the "we don't have his side of the story" people yet?) - he needs to get retrained pronto - or shuffled out of his position of "authority". It is neither his, nor anyone else's job (other than the Scout himself and perhaps the Scout's parents) to try to hold up a Scout's advancement because they are too young, or "aren't ready yet". This uniform kerfuffle is an example of adult power playing and has no place at all in Scouting. The BSA strongly encourages the wearing of the uniform - there is no where, in any literature, including any literature regarding advancement, where the uniform is actually required. The BSA's position is that it is far more important for a boy to be engaged in the program that for him to be in full uniform. If the only thing a Scout can afford is a shirt - that's great! Wear all the jeans you want. Scouts lose slides all the time - just have a supply of them on hand to replace a lost one (ask Scouts that are leaving the Troop - either because of aging out or because of loss of interest) if they'll donate their slides to a slide bank. But even then, neckerchiefs, like any other part of the uniform, are optional. A scout pulling a wrinkled shirt out of a plastic bag? As long as it's clean - great - he's wearing part of the uniform! Some of the folks on this forum think that the Scout's should stand up for themselves in cases like this - all well and good except a 12 year old boy, even a 16 or 17 year old boy, especially a Scout, can find it hard to stand up to authority figures like a Scoutmaster or Committee Chair. The Scoutmaster should be standing up to the CC for his Scouts - a friendly chat over a breakfast or lunch would be a good start to get the CC back on page - but if that doesn't work, the SM should be prepared to be full-throated in defense of his Scouts - and the ASM's should be lining up right behind the SM - especially if they've been trained and understand what is really important. Should we encourage the Boys to wear a full uniform? You bet. Should we be setting the example by wearing the full uniform ourselves? You bet! Should we allow some adult playing "I've got power" games to deny advancement to Scouts because of age or because they didn't wear the full uniform to a BOR? Absolutely Not - and we should make that known loud and clear to the adults attempting to do so.

First - the answer really is "It's up to the Merit Badge Counselor to decide if it's acceptable" That being said, I would not accept an explanation of why it didn't interest a Scout. The question asked why might it interest you - not why aren't you interested. I'm sure we can all find professions that we wouldn't be interested in - but even those professions that we aren't interested in, most of us can name at least three things that might interest us about them, even if they're a bit superficial, If I got that answer, I'd redirect it as well to ask why were they interested in checking out the profession in the first place. They may no longer be interested after learning about the profession, but there was something that made them initially interested in it. Stosh - by the rate of inflation - about $113/hour A zoologist's answer to the following questions: A Botanist studies "Lazily" - unlike animals, plants don't move so botanists can sit down all day. A Botanist studies "during the day" - there are very few plants that can be called nocturnal A Botanist studies "boring things called plants"

I have got to stop cutting up onions in front of my computer!

How many patrols are we talking about? I'm of the opinion that most patrols, no matter how they are formed, never really get a chance to gel. One thing our Troop tried (and it worked pretty well) was to have a camping trip where each Patrol had their own campsite - not just 300 yards and in sight. We used Camp Lakota, our local Boy Scout camp (sadly on the chopping block in 2017) and the campsites weren't really in visual or normal sound range of each other. The adults and senior Scouts had their own campsite. That doesn't mean the Patrols were left to their own devices - each had a walkie talkie to be able to communicate with the SPL/Base Camp and the Troop did come together a couple of times over the course of the weekend (including a late Saturday afternoon wide game - patrols versus each other in a capture the flag game) but otherwise, they were on their own. There was a Friday night fire for the entire unit but Saturday night, each Patrol had their own. They had to plan their own activities for most of the weekend. Was it a struggle for them? Sometimes - but at the end of the weekend, the Scouts all thought it was one of the best camping trips they had been on, and the Patrols really worked well together after that.

Merit Badge Counselors are chartered through the local council, whether they decide to work with a specific unit or not.

SSScout - I don't think it was Chapter A that was un-scoutlike - they reached out for help and were told they would get it from Chapter B. The problem is Chapter B - someone in that chapter sent a text cancelling the call-out, not someone from Chapter A. I think the first thing I would want to know is who sent the text cancelling the call-out? That's a question the Chapter Chief should be able to answer - at least in the chapter's I've worked with, the only one that is cancelling a chapter program or obligation is the Chapter Chief. Old - I would be absolutely livid that someone cancelled this without giving me as the advisor the courtesy of a consult. I would reply to all on the text message demanding an answer as to who made that decision and why (a good rule of thumb on modern communications - if a message is sent by text, respond by text, not e-mail - they may not read the e-mail for a while). These boys made a commitment and they failed to honor it - it sounds like they may not have even told the other chapter they were cancelling. I would be done giving any more time to this chapter - I'd let the Chapter Chief and the District Chair know that I was resigning as advisor effective immediately and that the chapter has 1 week make an appointment to get the equipment before I put it to the curb for trash collection.

The Boy Scouts has an honors society - it's called the Order of the Arrow. It used to be a society of honors campers but that emphasis has changed (frankly for the better - it's strengyt has always been service to others and the camping aspect seemed a bit forced as a result). Why not utilize that platform instead of ranks? Make folks Honorary Order of the Arrow Members - it might also help to improve the publics understanding of just what the OA is (and maybe even help revitalize the concept in many of our Councils where the program has degenerated into a weak shadow of its former glory). It opens up the field so local Lodges can honor police officers that respond to noise complaints by playing B-ball with the kids, and so that the National officers can honor people like Bill Gates Jr. BTW - check the newspaper article - did they leave off the Sr. on Bill Gates' name? The BSA issued its own press release about the number of Eagles in 2015 and named Bill Gates Sr.(though whoever then took the press release and created the article for "PRNewswire" left the Sr. off in the first paragraph but left it there in the quoted section).

Generational labels were developed by social scientists to help them make sense of how the industrial revolution and the continuing technological revolution(s) afterwards were affecting different generations of people (notice no one really talks about generational labels when this was mostly an agricultural or hunter/gatherer world - we may talk about eras and ages but not about generations - other than a certain revolutionary zeal, there wasn't much difference on how the founding fathers survived and how the puritans of 150+ years before survived). The media and marketers just screwed them up (Obama is a Gen X-er - but some media folks think of him as a Boomer). The problem with the media and marketer version of the generations is that they don't really understand the differences within a generation either. Late boomers and early X-er's are know for being early adopters of technology. Early boomers not as much. Late X-er's are less early adopters and more rapid adopters as technological advances have come quicker and quicker. Early Millenial's are the new parents of today - they were also rapid adopters. They tend to be "more highly educated" but less well-rounded in their education. They were the first to be really subjected to what I call the "be more like Japan and Europe educational model" of learn to the test instead of the fine American tradition of teach both knowledge and critical thinking. They were the first to be subject to the "mandatory volunteer service project". There was less "figure it out" and more "here's the step by step instructions". They were the first to experience the internet not as a tool but as a playground. They have the advantage of being the first to have nationwide and worldwide "friends and acquaintances" at their fingertips and the wherewithal to speak to (if not interact with) 100's of people at one time. Unfortunately, I think that also translates to being the first to not have to rely solely on their local community for support and friendship. Anyone remember the book Bowling Alone? They weren't bowling alone - they were just not bowling in their local community - they were bowling online with their buddies from Canada, Texas, California, Idaho, Utah, Israel, France. Maybe they're harder to get to step-up and volunteer but wait until we start seeing the late Millenial's - the folks in college right now - Emory University is now dealing with some students who are "traumatized" and "feeling unsafe" because someone chalked Trump 2016 on sidewalks in campus. Holy Shnikes - what's going to happen to them when they start getting jobs? I'm not really convinced that the BSA's volunteer problem is generationally based as much as it is likely to be era-based. We live in a new era - we're technologically savvy and more equal than we have ever been before. Women have been in the workforce for decades and that's not going to change anytime soon (nor should it). In the 1970's, my mother had a part-time job. In the 1980's, my sister had a career. That's a big jump - and it's not going away anytime soon (thank goodness). We have reached the point where women are earning more doctoral-level degrees than men. That's huge. What does that mean for us? It means our Den Leader tradition is outmoded - there aren't enough men or women working part time jobs while their spouses work full time to have weekly meetings in their homes. The two-career family is here to stay. We need to adapt (as many Packs have with weekly den meetings all held in the same place at the same time). Troops need to start thinking about adapting too. But more than that, we need to stop panicking about the numbers - we still have a couple of million Scouts involved. The biggest problem with the 1970's reboot wasn't that it was a bad idea, it was that it failed to attract the people in the urban areas it was meant to attract. It should be clear that Boy Scouting's strength is in the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas and that's where we should be focusing our efforts on.

You're being too picky. You say these scouts don't always show enthusiasm and helpfulness to other scouts - that suggests that they show enthusiasm and helpfulness at other times. Scouts aren't going to be perfect, and there are times every scout won't be enthusiastic about something and may not be in the best frame of mind to help other scouts (these are adolescents after all - the hormones don't shut off just because they put on the uniform). So they go on campouts because the parents are sending them and not because they really want to go? First, they're still going on the campouts - unless they're holing up in their tents with an iPad or Tablet all weekend, I think you should cut them some slack there. Second, have you talked to them about why they don't seem interested in going on the campouts? This would be a good SMC discussion - there may be reasons they don't want to attend and are just waiting for someone to ask. Maybe the campouts are to the same places over and over and over again and choosing some new places to camp and explore will generate more enthusiasm. Maybe the campouts have the same program over and over and over again. You say they're technically eligible - unless their Scout Spirit is so bad that you would deny them rank and need to have a discussion with the parents over it, I would put their name in nomination and let the boys vote - you'll know pretty quickly if the rest of the Troop feels the same way about these boys as you do. Trust your Scouts to know if they really deserve it or not. There are a few things out there that require the Scoutmaster's "approval". In almost all of the cases, the approval should be considered automatic unless there are absolutely egregious behavior issues that need to be addressed. Being less than enthusiastic and helpful at times, and not being very enthusiastic about going camping doesn't reach that level for me. When faced with a Scoutmaster's approval, I always give the benefit of the doubt to the Scout.

Thanks, Hedgehog I knew there had to be something like that somewhere

I am so sick and tired of this meme - this statement that the BSA took the "Outing of of Scouting" in the 1970's. What, exaclty, does that mean? I was a Scout in the 1970's - my unit camped or hiked once a month, without fail. We had backpacking trips to Isle Royale and the Porcupines, canoeing trips to The Boundary Waters, white-water rafting trips down the Wolf River and bicycle treks in Brown County, Indiana. Patrols went camping on their own. There wasn't a unit in our suburban Chicago council that didn't regularly go camping or hiking. There isn't anyone I know who was a Boy Scout in the 1970's that feel deprived of the Outings in Scouting. The BSA got a lot of flack from some of the 1950's and 1960's traditionalists (aka dinosaurs) who were upset that the BSA was trying to make their program more appealing to urban and suburban youth. Why, whatever happened to hopping on the train with all your gear and hopping off at the rural end of the line to go find a campsite? (Umm - suburbs happened). Why was the BSA trying to appeal more to urban and suburban youth? Simple answer - that's where the boys were (and still are). By the 1960's, 60% of Americans were living in cities and suburbs - you'd be a darn fool not to learn that statistic and read the handwriting on the wall - adapt or die. The emphasis in the Boy Scout handbook certainly changed - but I would argue in a good way - it more evenly balanced out the skills of the outdoors with the skills needed for good citizenship. There was still plenty of outing in the BSA handbook but it started to accept that a 5-mile hike along the Lake Michigan lake front trail in full view of high rises and skyscrapers was still a 5-mile hike. If anything, what the BSA did in the 1970's was de-emphasis the rural but you don't get a cute meme with "The BSA took the Rural out of Scouting". Gone were such merit badges as hog production, sheep farming, beef production, dairying, and poultry keeping - all replaced by a single merit badge - animal science. Gone were corn farming, cotton farming, forage crops, fruit & nut farming and small grains - all replaced by a single merit badge - plant science. 1952 was a brutal year for merit badges - more merit badges were discontinued and not replaced in 1952 than were discontinued and not replaced in the 1970's. The only merit badge that was discontinued and not replaced in the 1970's was Citizenship in the Home, and that was eventually replaced by family life in 1992. Boys Life was full of articles about the outdoors. Scout-o-Rama ticket sales prizes were almost all out door oriented - the top prizes were backpacks, sleeping bags and tents. If anyone took the Outing out of Scouting in the 1970's, it wasn't the BSA - it was individual units.

It really depends on the laws of your state and they can become a bit complicated. In Illinois, your organization first has to qualify, and receive Exempt status - this exempts the organization from paying taxes. Sales tax exemptions are given to Churches Exclusively charitable organizations Licensed not-for-profit day care centers Not-for-profit organizations that are operated primarily for arts or cultural purposes Qualifying senior citizen organizations Schools State, local, and federal governments Civic and fraternal organizations like American Legions, Elks Clubs, etc. are not eligible to received exempt status. If the organization is exempt from paying sales taxes on its purchases, it still must collect sales taxes on items it sells, except in the three instances below. The items are sold only to the organization's members, students, patients, or inmates. The sales are from occasional dinners open to the general public, no more than twice in any one year. The sales are not in direct competition with businesses in the community (such as gift shops and rummage stores). That being said, there is an additional rule for Not-for-profit hospitals and nursing homes that qualify as exclusively charitable institutions. They are not subject to sales tax collections when selling food or medicine to their patients. Hospital dining facilities that are not open to the general public are also exempt. However, a hospital or hospital auxiliary incurs a sales tax liability when selling candy, chewing gum, tobacco products, and razor blades, since these items aren't necessary for basic hospital service and place the hospital in competition with community businesses. Now to try to make sense of it based on the original questions. If the church "coffee shop" is only open to members, then they can sell coffee tax free. If it's open to the general public, then they must charge sales tax. If your Scout Unit is sponsored by a church and you only sell popcorn to church members, it's probably tax exempt. Selling to the general public? Technically sales tax needs to be collected. As I recall, our Boy Scout Council qualified for Exempt status - though not sure why. The Girl Scouts likely qualified for Exempt status as well. Even with exempt status, it could be argued that popcorn and cookie sales compete against community businesses - technically, sales tax would need to be collected - the easiest way to do that is build it in to the cost of a tn or box and Council pay at the end of the sales - I suspect that there might be an exception made for certain youth groups

Fair question - and my answer would be to search Cub Scout Knighting Ceremony which will lead to a pdf on the Scouting.org site from the 2012 Cub Scout Meeting Guide, month of July titled "July Courage" for Cubs in Shining Armor which gives a complete script for a knighting ceremony that calls for a fake sword. While I'm sure the argument can be made that fake sword means some sword-looking wooden object wrapped in tin foil or painted silver, it can also mean a reproduction sword (reproduction is a synonym for fake) which could very well be (and is most likely in the US) the sword used in this particular ceremony. If this ceremony is a legacy, it's a legacy of an official BSA program guide for Cub Scouts where the use of swords in a knighting ceremony is suggested - and it's not as if it's from 1965 when we were "less enlightened" - it is from 2012 - less than 4 years ago.