fred8033

33 minutes ago, DannyG said:

Yes. Fundraising helps. Even though my scout can cost up to $1500 annually, I really pay less than half out-of-pocket because of unit fundraising. Just trying to be open and generic to the amount it really costs to scout.

Agreed.  Fundraising can mitigate the cost as it can in sports and other programs too.  The cost discussion started because of asserting scouting is a good value compared to other programs like sports.  Since those programs can also fundraise to reduce cost, the comparison is best done on raw cost.  What is the family cost before it is reduce by unit fundraisers.  I'd still argue scouting is a great program, but not necessarily cheaper at all.  If your scout is active, it costs money.

On 5/24/2024 at 9:39 AM, JSL3300 said:

Maybe the small expense was once a draw (When my boys started in 2018, it was $33 for national, $42 pack fee and that wasn't even very long ago!) but that's in the past. 

Yep.  When our first son started in 2000 (2001?), the cost was way way way less. I think registration for him was $12?  Plus $5 for a year of Boy's Life?   Plus, another $12 for the adult leader app?  It was reasonable.  Add a Tiger cub shirt and minor items; reasonable cost.

Ten years ago when I had four sons and my wife and I were registered ... and active ... we were easily spending $5,000 a year.  A high adventure a year.  Four summer camps.  Campouts every month for at least two kids.  Activities.  Uniforms.  etc, etc.  ...

I can't imagine what the cost would be now.

Eagle application deadline is not when the scout turns 18.   BSA Guide To Advancement; section 9.0.1.5.   

                    https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

The scout has up to 24 months to complete the Eagle Board of Review; BSA GTA section 8.0.3.1.   Assuming three months to schedule the EBOR, the Eagle application needs to be submitted within 21 months after the scout turns 18 ... but ... just turn in the Eagle application ASAP.  

The Eagle rank "REQUIREMENTS" must be completed before the scout turns 18; not the application.
           https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Eagle_Rank_Requirements_2018.pdf

The key is the Eagle application is not a rank requirement.  It's paperwork to get recognized as an Eagle.

On 5/22/2024 at 3:42 PM, Cburkhardt said:

The BSA has been comparatively inexpensive as a youth activity.  It is easier to justify continued involvement with an organization that is a good bargain.

I will challenge this one.  If your scout is active, scouting has significant cost.  If your scout and you are both involved, it's very significant.  IMHO when both scout and parent are active in scouts, the cost is at least the same as most sports; if not more.

I hope this works too.  Keep these camps teaching adventure to youth.  It's too important to lose.

On 5/11/2024 at 5:51 AM, BetterWithCheddar said:

...  I do believe there is such thing as "toxic masculinity" ... but men embracing the traditional "provider" role is still largely a good thing. ... I view the lack of masculinity as the greater pitfall.

Well said though though I can easily flex on the "provider" view.  I know many very feminine women who have strong professional careers earning good money and I know many very masculine men who daily wash dishes, do laundry, vacuum and bathe their kids.  

I agree though that we scare too many of our young men away from being masculine.  

4 hours ago, HashTagScouts said:

And there you go- there is your new logo in that email

Sounds like a Charles Kuralt Sunday morning TV show.

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

"Clyde A. Brock, a 53-year-old bachelor, was twice "called to task" for taking nude photographs of Boy Scouts, displaying them around his Oregon City home, then showing them off to boys who visited. Yet troop leaders didn't kick him out.

Only after two Scouts came forward to say Brock had "relationships with them as well as other members of the troop ...that cannot be condoned" was he expelled from Scouting in 1968.

 

Scouting executives quietly blacklisted Brock from ever volunteering again, but let him skirt the accusations by writing a letter of resignation citing only his high blood pressure for quitting.

Let's see how the system worked:

Twice called to task. Not once but twice,

Troop leaders did not kick him out.

Later had multiple relationships with multiple boys (and we know what that means).

He was not reported to police.

Allowed him to write a letter of resignation.

Twice called to task for showing bad pictures?  I agree it's extremely in appropriate, but what 1968 law would have applied?  If we look back on 1960s as the era of free love and redefining society, there is way more to this story than can be read here.   And it 100% misses the time and context.  ...  He was expelled when more came forward.  

Yeah, the system worked.  Like so many case law examples, the incidents are ugly and don't show society at it's best.  But, it seems to have worked.  ...  I agree I'd prefer the police were involved.  BUT, that was society in the 1960s.  

I'm more upset with so many groups that kept not reporting even in the 1990s, 2000s and even the last few years.  

55 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

The BSA doesn’t think so: 

"There have been instances where people misused their positions in Scouting to abuse children, and in certain cases, our response to these incidents and our efforts to protect youth were plainly insufficient, inappropriate, or wrong,"

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2012/10/boy_scout_perversion_files_off.html

Ahhh...   That's a logical fallacy to change scope when the judgement shifts.  I was referring to the earlier use of a specific person that where the poster used that person to argue the system failed.  From my reading that specific case file, the system worked.  ... Similarly, an earlier poster says many of the files refer to incidents in the vaguest terms is yet another logical fallacy.  The same files that contain vague references often also contains very specific details and interview notes.  

It's an ugly topic that indites society; not just scouting. 

@skeptic ... I really appreciate the NY Times 1935 article about the IVF files.  Amazing how misrepresented details can be.  

58 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Scouting executives quietly blacklisted Brock from ever volunteering again, but let him skirt the accusations by writing a letter of resignation citing only his high blood pressure for quitting.

He was blocked re-registering in the 1970s and 1980s.  The 1968 letter had the SE say they could not ignore the accusations and said it was Brock's actions that led to the result.  For 1968, this seems like it was handled well ... for 1968 ... before computers ... before modern laws.  This sounds like BSA's files worked well.

The one thing that surprised me is no police report.  So so so many of the files do have police reports.  I bet there was not a 1968 chargeable crime.  The 1960s were a long time ago and so much has change.  A lot has changed.  

41 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Thanks. Ironically perhaps, I find myself reading bbc.com more and npr less for balanced US news.

Me too.  

Tangent ... I'm pretty familiar with BSA membership numbers.   Does anyone have a graph of GSA membership over the last decade to this year / last year ?

My suggestion is to love the past and the involvement.  Then, move on.  Find the next place to volunteer.  Scouting is not the end-all-be-all of life.

Interesting articles in the last few days.  

• Uri Berliner (NPR editor) published editorial about NPR, bias, DEI and other related topics.  Really well thought out.
  • https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust
• Uri Berliner suspended by NPR.
  • https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/media/npr-suspends-uri-berliner-liberal-bias/index.html

I'm a four decade long NPR listener from three different parts of the country.  My local channels have absolutely been incredible.  But like the article says, I've had a hard time continuing listening recently because of the repetitive and think-this-way news coverage.  

I highly recommend both articles.  

9 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Minor argument that is negotiable.  One scout on a campout could be a patrol. 

We can all agree a patrol is a patrol.  Regrouping into ad-hoc patrols or doing doing things at the troop level subverts the patrol system.  When forming long-term patrols at troop meetings, two scouts patrols is not good.  Ideally, seven scouts is a good patrol size.  ... BUT if on the campout, only one scout from that patrol goes on the campout, then that scout should be given the option to cook by themselves.  

I hate typos in my own writing. 

3 hours ago, SSScout said:

Two Scouts make a Patrol. 

Minor argument that is negotiable.  One scout on a campout could be a patrol. 

We can all agree a patrol is a patrol.  Regrouping into adhoc patrols or doing doing things at the troop level subverts the patrol system.  When forming long-term patrols at troop meetings, two patrols is not good.  Ideally, seven scouts is a good patrol size.  ... BUT if on the campout, only one scout from that patrol goes on the campout, then that scout should be given the option to cook by themselves.  

21 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I am not interested in starting an interminable political debate, just to obtain folks' definitions of "liberal" and whatever the antonym is ("conservative?")

Liberal is in the eyes of the beholder.  I mainly use it as humor.  Political terms are assigned by the observer.  My more old-fashioned friends call me a liberal.  My new-age friends call me a conservative.  I'm pretty sure I'm the same person; just not a simple label.

1 hour ago, OaklandAndy said:

What happens on this forum is not for me to decide nor is it my place to "ask". It's a public forum. I would think the moderators would silence those who become aggressive and threatening. 

 

Neither do I and I hope no one ever would. Outside this forum is another story. 

Ok.  So we are raising moderator awareness for something that has not happened as part of silencing those who have different views?  And raising red flags about in-person issues that have not happened?  

This whole discussion has devolved into nonsense.  

19 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

I didn't think I would have to say it but when the actions and decisions made by the organization are just plain wrong, they obviously you have to speak up. It's not "eyes of the beholder" when the majority agrees. We're not talking about purging people who disagree, we're talking about purging those who take actionable steps against the mission of serving youth. 

... Ignoring the past ...  10 yeas ago it was clear what was plain wrong and members would have been silenced.  

... Misrepresenting the complaint.  ... I see no one advocating taking "actionable" steps against youth anywhere in this forum.  We support all scouts and do it with a smile and friendship.  Individuals people are not a policy issue.

... Changing the advocated request ...  So is the action requested blocking discussion on this forum or blocking people taking actions that I've yet to see people say is happening.  Earlier in this forum there was discussion of whether moderators should silence certain posters on this topic.  

Scouting is fundamentally about being a member of society.  Civil discourse.  Acting as part of a community.  Discussion is core to scouting.

18 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

No, because most of those decisions are made without actual input from it's members. 

That's not correct.  This forum debated membership changes for as long as I've been a member.  Both sides have been debated.  At least a decade if not 15+ years.

18 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

 Plus, advocating for others to join, which is an obvious positive, is different from suppressing the change when it would lead to a positive outcome. 

Ahhh.  The value in one person's eyes justifies their crimes.  The ends justify the  means.  So, it's okay for them to violate the Scout Law because they "believe" their beliefs justify breaking the agreement they signed when they agreed to be scout leaders?  ...  But, then the policies change and the original advocates now expect purging people who disagree?  This is the hypocrisy.  

18 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

I'm not saying you have to agree with their identity or lifestyle, but everyone should agree that were here to serve the youth in the world. However, if you don't agree and you can't contain it, then why be that person? 

As scouters working with scouts, we support all scouts with a smile and friendship.  Keep politics out of doing scouting. 

As for this forum and other public discussion, it's just wrong to silence people.  It's just wrong.

25 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

The way I see it, when you register (or re-register) as an adult leader, you are agreeing to uphold the decisions and responsibilities mandated by the organization, regardless of your personal feelings. If you can't do that, then you leave the organization (like so many already have) and carry on with your life. No different from any other private membership organization. 

Yes, change takes time. But getting use to the change and refusing to are completely separate feelings. And in the eyes of the organization, they are going to move on with or without you. 

 

Agreeing to uphold the decisions and responsibilities doesn't mean silencing discussion and alternative thoughts.  Aren't you advocating for a position that would have prevented BSA from ever moving toward including girls and other orientations 10 years ago?  Silencing those leaders and those discussions would have shut down the policy changes.  ... This really feels like hypocrisy.  

15 hours ago, yknot said:

... verbal or physical threats weren't made against those children by other scouts or adult leaders. I don't know why people think it's OK though when it's about girls. ...

Yeah.  Either this is out there stretching the argument or I've missed some fundamental militant issue.  Women and girls have been part of scouting for decades.  I've never seen an issue or heard of such.

15 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

And why would the medium in which the opinion is expressed matter? Why would something be ok to say on a Zoom or online but not in person?

Disposing of those you disagree is wrong.  Some call it censorship.  I call it a form of sin.  People are no more disposable for their beliefs than their sexual orientation.  We all need to work together.  

I've always thought it should be obvious that there is a clear difference between forums like this where we discuss and exist for discussion.  In-person working with youth and new leaders is different.  That should be completely obvious.  ...  We as scouters should support all SCOUTS; period.  I've seen that happen over and over again even when we disagree or question the situation.  ...   Heck, I'd even support liberals if they ever wanted to join scouting.  

We don't purge people because of beliefs.

Not that rare.  It happens.

District boundaries are not a law or contract.  It's just to simplify grouping of units and to balance numbers.  If your unit fits better for one of many reasons in another district, work to advocate being in that district.  Get the unit assigned to that district.  

Flexibility - Even if you can't get your unit reassigned to that district, you can still attend roundtable and often even events in the other district.  It's all about what works best.   For example, all your friends might attend in the other district.  Or the other district's roundtable or events conflict with standing troop date commitments.  Then, attending the other district might work better long term. 

Challenges - If not formally assigned to the desired district, your paperwork goes to the other district.  Example, advancement and awards would go to the other district.   

On 3/23/2024 at 7:47 PM, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

... hit women because they're women ... gender-based violence ...  men and women are not equal in value and dignity ...  

I really don't understand where these extremist comments are coming from?  It's out there.  ... Society has been debating major topics for decades and will continue to do so.  The "who can hit who and for what" is mid-evil.  I pray that's not the frame of mind brought to this forum.  ...

The topics now are balanced funding for both Women's Studies and Men's Studies departments.  Inclusion of women on men's sports teams and inclusion of men on women's sports teams.  Mandatory paternal parental leave.  Bring your son to work day.  Why are more women graduating college than men?  ... There is gender discrimination, but it goes both ways.  It's a real topic.  I just don't think it's a healthy discussion for inside a troop.   ... 

We should be treating each other well.  ....  Beyond that, I'd rather see scouts spending their time sharpening a stick to cook a hot dog over a fire.