Jump to content

Going to the next Jamboree?

Sign in to follow this  

A place to chat about Scouting's biggest gathering

252 topics in this forum

  1. WSJ 2019 selection

    • 24 replies
    • 1286 views
    • 32 replies
    • 1277 views
    • 30 replies
    • 1255 views
  2. Jamboree Menu (Meals)

    • 12 replies
    • 1245 views
  3. Taking a pass ...

    • 23 replies
    • 1243 views
    • 2 replies
    • 1227 views
  4. Jamboree worth it?

    • 31 replies
    • 1225 views
  5. Heat Index

    • 28 replies
    • 1219 views
    • 15 replies
    • 1178 views
    • 8 replies
    • 1145 views
    • 49 replies
    • 1144 views
    • 19 replies
    • 1141 views
  6. Patch of the Day????

    • 38 replies
    • 1097 views
    • 32 replies
    • 1094 views
    • 16 replies
    • 1089 views
Sign in to follow this  
  • LATEST POSTS

    • OK, but I'm curious as to what specifics put you off? To lead you a bit if TSA were to say they like the look of BSA and are going to remodel on you I can think of things that I think would work and would be an improvement and things I don't think would work. Things I'd welcome Your uniforms. (with the exception of the badge sash) Your shirts look much better than ours. Particularly the blue one for cubs. Bigger emphasis on the patrol system, would like to see it used more in the explorer section in particular Things I'd not welcome. Combining scouts and explorers to run to 18. Not sure it works with natural peer groups here. Chartering organisations. I wouldn't want to see scouting controlled by other bodies. Albeit we already have a small number of "closed" groups. Those are purely examples and not exhaustive. It's just a prompt more than anything! I'm certainly not trying to provoke an argument. I'm just curious as to what you see, whether it's actually accurate and what you like and dislike about it.
    • I didn't really intend to start a tangent, but the way that the family life merit badge requirement is currently worded, it leads me to believe that part of the intent behind the requirement is for the Scout to think about what makes an effect father in order to get the Scout to think about his own potential future role as a father. "7a. Your understanding of what makes an effective father and why, and your thoughts on the father’s role in the family." That's why, in my opinion (and I could be wrong), it doesn't ask about what makes an effective mother or parent - although it does ask about the Scout's understanding of the responsibilities of a parent in the next requirement.  That's also why, IMO, if they wanted to keep the same intent behind the requirement, it would make sense to change it to ask boys what makes an effective father and to ask girls what makes an effective mother - instead of the more generic "parent".
    • I think it would be far more instructive if there were three parts to the requirement. a. Explain the role and importance of the Father in the family. b. Explain the role and importance of the Mother in the family. c.Explain how they are different, and how both together contribute to building stronger family ties. Whether the Scout is a boy or a girl, from a healthy family or a broken home, these questions are important, and will help develop stronger families in the future as the Scouts learn to understand the vital nature of each parental role in their families, whether present or future.
    • Wait ... what? You are comapring to utterly different things; I can see which dots you are trying to connect, but you are ending up with the wrong picture and forcing some ideas that I do not believe a relevant. For you to claim that Solo is seeing less success (mind you, it's nothing near a flop - it's still making millions, just not as many as other Star Wars films) - because movie-goers are "voting with their wallets" "not to support Disney and Ms. Kennedy's progressive take on the Star Wars universe" I would find laughable if it wasn't so erroneous. I still don't know where fans are getting these "social justice themes" in TLJ, and honestly what's wrong with getting a few more female characters (= Rose and Holdo. 2. Big deal)? Honestly, Star Wars fans are the HARDEST to please and the MOST obnoxious in their reviews (well, with the exception of Trekkies, lol). You didn't like The Last Jedi. We get it. I thought it was great, and more fun that I have had in a Star Wars movie in a long time. I say this as somebody who is as big a Star Wars fan, if not far moreso, than almost anybody here. When you speak of the "ardent, longtime Star Wars fans, I am amongst their numbers. But you want to make this political, which isn't the case. Why isn't Solo doing well? Nothing to do with politics I can tell you - it's that nobody really cared about getting a Han Solo movie in the first place! LOL. It's simply a movie nobody asked for, coming too close off the heels of another, bigger Star Wars movie, which, as much as you may have hated TLJ, still made so many billions of dollars that it has generated a greater income than many world nations. Your may resent the changes to your idealized Star Wars childhood all you like, but they are going to continue to be made, and continue to be successful. I have enjoyed them greatly, and I am as conservative as anybody. Star Wars is such a juggernaut that your wishing Solo would flop won't make a ding-dong difference in the numbers. Sadly, the BSA is in far hotter water than Star Wars is. But experience is proving that those of us who want to preserve the Boy Scouts for what it is - a dynamic organization for boys that protects their right to explore their world without intervention from adults, girls, political agendas, et cetera - are in the minority now. And unlike Star Wars, which is simply a matter of artistic tastes and personal preferences, this is a matter of right and wrong, though too few will fight to protect that. This is why I will bow out of Scouting at the end of next year, but continue to happily enjoy Star Wars probably decades after the BSA is defunct.
    • If execs bury the changes in unnecessarily neutral language, they will lose scouters who prefer that you speak plainly. Trained in marketing, they meticulously count news clippings and categorize them into favorable and unfavorable media references. If they lean too much on trying to read those tea leaves, it's gonna be rough. Inclusion rhetoric is also potentially disasterous. Think about the constant glossary reminders that Venturing has to put out. That breath wasted in teaching scouters that it's not "Venture Scouts". A Silver/summit award that has an eagle on it but is not an Eagle award. The lesson? "Treat us like real scouts, just don't call us scouts." Ridiculous! And membership numbers confirm it. Like I tell new acquaintances, it doesn't matter what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner. Changing language won't help girls be included. Actually helping girls be included will. The kind of girls I want are the kind who can appreciate the the boys I have. When that happens, it's a beautiful thing. Precious few changes in title are necessary. Consider Robert's Rules of Order. It declared that a female leader was also to be called Chairman/Director/Governor. But to make clear that such woman was welcome in her post, simply address her as Madame Chairman. Such a move did not bankrupt Robert's Rules, it made it more valuable to a wider audience. Why? Because the opposite of a room full of men conducting business was a room full of men brawling, not a room of full of both sexes conducting business. We need to remind ourselves that the original opposite of Boy Scout was Military Scout. We weren't giving boys space from girls. We were giving space from imitating the warfare of the day ... a space where military disciplines could be use for youthful peacetime service.  That same space can and is being used for both sexes to perform youthful peacetime service.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×