Stosh

54 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

You get breakfast?

LOL!  I went to my Bible Study breakfast this morning and I was the only one that showed up.  I went home and didn't get breakfast!  

The Indian influence once held a positive allure in our culture.  It was considered a good thing to be doing, even honorable in many aspects to be associated with the Indian culture.  It was a good thing to be white with a "Pocahontas" background.  But as the PC world evolved into what it is today, it has become demonized and reserved only for those who have been segregated out to be able to continue honoring it.  In many unspoken respects, the Indian culture belongs back on the reservation.  It is not a shared culture, it belongs only to those of that descent.   We play the extremes today.  Everyone has to be one way or the other otherwise we can't play the "us" and "them" game.  Even our former president played the game.  No, he was not the first black president, he was the first mulatto president.  He was as much white as he was black.  

In 1924, Congress finally started granting citizenship to Indians.  In 1936 they finally got the right to vote.  This stands in contrast to Blacks getting citizenship in 1868.  All these people were born in the US, but "us" and "them" retained a strong foot hold on our culture.

When BSA first started out, the Indian culture was truly a sub-culture in America.  Eventually they became citizens and eventually held the right to vote.  The struggle is over and they can have their culture back and no one else can share it.  That's a long, cruel history that we have tried to honor throughout the years of Scouting.

I'm afraid in order to toe-the-line with PC, we will need to dump the OA completely as we know it.  It's unfortunate.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it.  BSA hasn't been serving boys very well for the past 40 years ever since they took on female memberships.  What makes anyone think that adding more females at a younger age is going to turn things around?

As the world grows and develops to an ever more glorious level, one must remember that life revolves around cycles.  At one point, let's just say 1999 everyone was pretty much gung ho on our public school system.  Then came the need to make it even better.  Did anyone ever crunch the numbers to see this grand step into the Brave New World?  Well home schooled children were at 850,000  in 1999 when they first started actually aware of it's magnitude.  That was 1.7% of eligible kids.  Well in 2012, that number had grown to 1.8 million,  or 3.4% of eligible kids.  And there was no organized program to promote this. 

Somebody's doing something different and it is making major gains among our youth in this country.  BSA on the other hand year after year shows a negative trickle downwards during this same period., and have done so for many years prior to that. 

Parents evaluate the situation and society in which their kids are growing up and are making decisions in the best interest of their children.  Obviously for many, it's not in a governmental run or even privately run school system.  The political push now is vouchers so as to have their children NOT in the government run school system. 

So what does the government do?  They double down on the process and fight against vouchers and implement laws making home schooling more difficult.  But it doesn't seem to be working. 

So where does the BSA fit into this model?  It's doubling down on a dying program.  40 years ago, part of the program went co-ed, then co-ed leadership, now fully co-ed.  And the record shows?   Hmmmm.....

The only solution to the ever changing political agendas of "us" and "them" is total silence.  Good luck with that.

A dollar used to be backed by gold.

Then it became a silver certificate.

Now it's just a dollar.

Dang, at my age, it's difficult enough to remember what I had for breakfast.

Have all the boys sign a troop necker and date it.

I'm thinking that OA will need a complete overhaul.  The Native Indian culture would in no way fit into today's PC world.

3 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Terrible idea. Sorry, she's just not the right age at the right time. It sucks, but it is what it is. Eagle is not a measurement of being a good Scout or a good person, and she should be comfortable with the fact she is both of those things, but not an Eagle Scout. 

If they make this exception I'd be hard pressed to see how the flood gates of exceptions just bursts open. 

What's the big deal.  BSA is used to slippery slopes.  Unfortunately only in Bizarro World do they ever go up.

http://www.scoutinsignia.com/csusflag.htm

Isn't it great that CO's run their units by proxy?  Is it any wonder who's running things.  After all, it usually isn't the boys.

At one point wasn't the flag over the right pocket?

"My scouts" puts the focus where it needs to be.  Too much "My son, my opportunity, my family, my... my.... my...."

It's always "My Scouts" or it's wrong.  The program is for "My Scouts", PERIOD.

Either way, it makes good press for a struggling program.  I'm sure the win-win means National and the girl.  What about the rest of the program?

Hmmm..... I do believe I have more experience than anyone on this forum working with co-ed youth programs.  Anyone out there been able to successfully hold a Venturing Crew together for more than 13 years?  Not many I'm sure. The He-man Women Hater part of me has nothing to do with women, but has everything to do with trying to preserve the unique nature of BSA in our society.  A "safe-place" (borrowing from today's rhetoric) for boys to focus on developing a caring moral character in today's society.  Well, now that that has been changed, there's no real reason to play the charade of BOY Scouts anymore.  The program has become a "johnny-come-lately" to the world of co-ed youth programs and there are plenty of co-ed programs out there that are doing just that with a lot more experience and expertise.  At my age, it's a great temptation to either find something else to do, or join a co-ed program already successfully being run.  I guess my "Woman-Hater" part of me says why not the easy path for a change.  My expertise will work "over there" just as well.  As has been identified by others, "I'm not leaving the program because they took on girls, I'm leaving became the program left me."  That just may be the case, depending on how much effort I want to put into the new and improved "Boy" Scouts.

And this is the classic example of why this whole thing isn't working.  This girl doesn't want to be a Scout, she wants to be an Eagle, and the parent's agenda is solely focused on THEIR child getting something and have no interest in what's best for anyone else.  Game on! (and there's no such thing as a win-win in any game.)

It takes two to tango.  In many respects @SSF and @Eagle94-A1 are correct. The clash of generations has been around since day one.  The problem is not that the Old Guard is stoically entrenched or every Newbie Parent is looking to gain some advantage for their scout, it's the fact that neither of them of them are willing to get on the same page and work at doing what's best for all the boys in the unit.

For centuries, the conflict has settled down on the cusp of level 4, sometimes slipping into level 5.  Level 4 is the Game of Conflict and Level 5 is Divorce.  The old guys think it's fine just the way it is because it is working, "it ain't broke, don't fix it" and the new guys have some relevant new ideas that could make things even better, "there's always room for improvement".  Yet once an agenda is developed by either side  "it's game on!"  Whenever either side doesn't get it's way and their "agenda" is threatened enough to hold sway, it's time for Divorce, someone's gotta go.  This forum is loaded with all kinds of such games identified.

Yep, I'm a "stick in the mud" member of the Old Guard.  And yet I have seen the progression of 50 years of Scouting and it's decline from when every kid in the US wanted to be a Scout to a rather embarrassed young man admitting to his buddies that his parents force him to be in Scouts.  Now, as an Old Guard who's been fortunate to have the experience of 50 years watching, I know it's broke and needs fixing.  So where's my agenda?  "Well back in the day when things were great....." and the eyes begin to roll.  So the New Guys come along and say, "I have the miracle cure" for all that's wrong.  Game on!  Neither side is all that excited about the way it is and no one's going to give an inch to do anything to effectively change it, and the slippery slope slide just continues on it's inevitable decline.

Until everyone recognizes, neither side is going to sit down and start talking about what the real problems are.  It's a lot easier to put bandaids on symptoms than come up with a cure.  Until both sides put aside their personal agendas and set a clear goal, we will only wallow in our petty little game.  This program is not about Old Guard egos or Helicopter Parent interference, it's about the boys and what's best for them.  THAT is seldom the common goal of the two groups, but it's the only goal worth fighting for.  Everything else is what is dragging down the program.  We are on the brink of Divorce level conflict, and each side is positioning for an advantage as to what's best for them.  Not much, other than token lip-service, is dedicated to what's best for the kids.  They are the unfortunate side of collateral damage.  Who's really speaking for them?  No one with any sort of adult agenda is, that much I know.

I do it because I was asked to do it.

1 hour ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I was a den leader, and I feel those Scouts are my Scouts.   Cub Scouting is more of a village, because it involves the families and I care about those kids and their families very much.  

ETA:  They're not my Cub Scouts anymore, but I hope to be invited to at least one COH. 

Please take this as presented in the most respectful way.  The only time I refer to "my" scouts is when I am distinguishing them from other scouts.  Otherwise "my" is not a common part of my vocabulary.  The program isn't mine, it's the boys'.  The troop isn't mine, it's the boys'.  The activities are not mine, they are the boys'. etc.  I guess I learned that a long time ago in a place far away.  My parents held no interest, no claim, no involvement in my scouting experience.  They didn't drop me off at the door and take off.  I rode my bike or I didn't go.  I paid my own way except for my original uniform.  That was a birthday gift to me from my parents.  For the most part my experience was held together by the bonds of my buddies who were also in the program.  

Too often I see adults clinging dearly to THEIR ownership in some part or another in a scout troop.  Just because one pays a registration fee to participate does not give me the right to own anything.  At best, as SM I "rent" someone else's kids for the evening/activity.  What I often see is this ownership or staking out a claim, or taking possession of, parts of the program and planing a flag as being very divisive to the welfare of the scout's program.  

If the COR came to me (which has happened in the past) and says, "Your're not the SM anymore."  I'm sure I can find something productive to do with my time.  There are a ton of youth programs out there that can use my expertise. 

I treat the parents like I treat the boys.  Here's the task, if it doesn't get done, it doesn't get done.  Fundraisers?  Not my problem, you want your kid to go to summer camp, either pay out of pocket or organize a fundraiser, the boys will help if asked.  CC?  I dunno.  I never saw the charter this past year, not my concern.  COR?  Got one because he told me he was COR.  MC?  I guess everybody.  I have 1 active ASM and 1 inactive ASM that will step up on an as needed basis.

I need a new ASM?  I get an application form have the person fill it out and sign it and I give it to the COR with fees to take care of.  Then I don't worry about it anymore.

My 1 active ASM does all the $$ paperwork and accounts and keeps track of advancement.

I work with the boys and the ASM helps out as needed.

I haven't had any drama anytime for the past 3 years.  It's not my problem and I have no intention of making it so.  Stay in your own lane.

3 hours ago, numbersnerd said:

So the iconic yellow neckerchief is only for kindergartners? Interesting to see if the feedback will be, "What, no yellow like when I was a kid?" I'd be cynical once finding out to enjoy that traditional combination of blue and gold would require signing up at 5 years old. Ugh.

If it has the traditional Cub Scout emblem on it, I'd be tempted to make yellow the standard Pack neckerchief until Webelos. That way parents are only on the hook for a new hat as a distinguishing element for each program year.

When I was in Cubs, many moons ago, the Den # patch was enough to distinguish the different groupings.  My son wore the yellow necker until he went into Webelos, no one ever said a thing.  The award on the pocket told everyone what level he was at.  I'm thinking the neckers are nothing more than purchased awards for the years of Cubbing.  I think they have service stars for that, too.

5 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Mr. stosh, I agree with the point your are making, I truly do. But there is something missing. The scout you describe in your post doesn't need any coaching for the EBOR. For any reason. Sounds more like a helicopter Scoutmaster. A lesson for all of us is no matter how old and how experienced we scoutmasters are, we Scoutmasters can keep learning to grow and mature more.

Barry

If one were to read more carefully, one would see that the only involvement I have in the process is a bit of EBOR coaching but only if requested by the scout.  One of the things NOT taught by BSA are interview skills.  Sure they sit in front of BOR's all the time to attain rank, but there have been a few over the years that have asked for some assistance in that process when it comes to Eagle because of the extreme formality of the situation.  It is a part of the process NOT covered by any requirement for rank, just a bit of help to get through a situation that hasn't presented itself in prior Scout training.

The accusation that I am a helicopter Scoutmaster is uncalled for and doesn't bode well for a scout is friendly, kind or courteous.  Just another one of those lessons for all of us no matter how old and how experienced we scoutmasters are, we Scoutmasters can keep learning to grow and mature more.

As a kid back in the 60's I read BL from cover to cover, even the ads that promoted selling stuff to get prizes.  Sure there were agenda items in the magazine.  The space articles were great (I grew up in the era of Sputnik to Moon Landing).  They were great.  Camping, hunting, fishing, it was all there designed just for me in mind.  Yes, the changes in the 70's marked the top of the slippery slope to what we have today.  I thought it might have been me, having grown up and taken a non-youthful look at the world of BL.  But alas, my son dropped his BL subscription after the first year.  It might have glanced through a first couple of issues, but after that when they came in the mail, they sat on the kitchen table for days until the Mrs. told him to put his things in his room.  He did, he had a trash can in his room.

16 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

OK, Stosh says the boys will lose, Flagg says the girls will lose, we'll have to see what actually happens.

Yes, there will need to be more leaders (1).  That means welcoming to the new people who show up to help out.  

If patrols are youth run, if I understand Stosh correctly, the adults aren't all that important! (2)     The BSA has a wealth of training materials and there's always Youtube for learning to do lashings and practically any other Scout skill. 

We'll have to see how it goes. 

1) But will the leaders be the boys or adults?  It's my suspicion that it is adults being referred to here.  Scouting needs boy leaders, not adult leaders.

2) The program is designed for the boys.  and yes, you do fully understand correctly.