jrush

Seattle, I'm not trying to "personally reassure" anyone, I was merely making a point that one shouldn't take studies done by, shall we say, unfavorable-toward-homosexuals groups at face value. The megachurch preacher in Atlanta who settled a lawsuit over sex with teenager boys doesn't self-identify as gay. The prisoners raping other prisoners don't self-identify as gay. Etc.

I was just pointing out that the BSA's objection to homosexuality in scouting is a purely moral one, and that's fine. You don't want to see a CM and his boyfriend holding hands. That's fine. My point is, a moral objection to homosexuals is going to be damned hard for the BSA to own when an openly gay DSC or MOH awardee is told he lacks the moral character to be a good role model to scouts.

Personally, I don't think the bar on homosexual scouts and leaders is sustainable, any more than I thought the bar on openly-serving homosexuals in the military was sustainable. Whether or not I agree with the ban is besides the point...I don't think it's sustainable. I think eventually, Congress is going to stop protecting organizations that discriminate against gay youth and adults, at best they'll just lose their charter, at worst they'll get labled a "hate group"...I'm just not sure the BSA at the corporate level just isn't going to allow that to happen.

Kudu, my whole point is, the BSA used WB as the tool to basically "de-Green Bar Bill" scouting. Blaming WB for the motivations and actions of the BSA is no more logical than blaming handguns for the murder rate in Washington DC.

Blasting WB won't put the "real" patrol method back into scouting any more than banning handguns in DC will make people feel safe walking down unlit streets at night.

If you want to blast something, blast the BSA millionaires. Propose a movement to gut scouting above the council level. Leave the national office in charge of rank advancement and the national jamboree and nothing more. Put the councils in charge of their own WB program, their own YP, their own G2SS.

Instead of insisting the WB institute a syllabus change that national would outright not allow, how about insisting that Councils be placed in charge of their own WB programs. After all, councils determine whether or not some lad has met the requirements to be awarded the rank of Eagle.

Get WB put down at the council, then you, Kudu, can be annointed the council training chair, and then you develop and guide the WB curriculum to best suit the needs of your council.

Well, you certainly have the right attitude...everyone in my patrol learned something valuable at WB, from how to better provide scouting for youth with disabilities to which scouters are most accomplished at "winning" TGOL.(This message has been edited by jrush)

Kudu, I understand.

G2SS and YP are just guidelines rather than "rules". A 3-day backpacking trip is really just an "extended patrol day hike". I suppose a coed venture crew could do an unsupervised overnight campouts an call them "extended crew meetings".

Maybe I also don't understand the ire because our course did have the patrols about 100 yards apart, we did do our "backpacking trip" without the TG, and I figured all courses did the same thing, since it is a standardized syllabus, and your poor experience with WB is a local, rather than national issue.

Sure, I think WB could be better...I was looking at it from the point of view of a person who has had extensive military training and professional development, so I found some of the things silly...I think a course which you drescribe would be far more applicable to Troops. At the same time, the stuff I thought was silly was entirely appropriate for Cub leaders, and the "chuck 'em out there on their own" isn't going to fly with coed crews, posts, or ships. So, should WB return to be a "Troop-centric" course, and tell the Cubs and coed leaders that the course they're going to attend will have little to no applicability to their programs?

Kudu, I agree with the concept you're proposing, but the way units could let their patrols operate in 1955 isn't the way the BSA will let units allow patrols to operate in 2015. I still don't blame WB, but rather the CYA mentality in G2SS, YP, etc. As I said in post #2 of this thread, WB is a "reflection of how national thinks" or something along those lines. WB isn't going to shift back to the GBB concept, because the Scouting HQ doesn't embrace the GBB concept.

I agree with your ire at scouting getting away from GBB's ideals, but it's not just a WB issue.

Eagle, my point was that it's silly to blame WB for not teaching a version of the patrol method which violates 2-deep leadership requirements in YP.

The B-P Patrol Method of 300' between patrols is certainly easy if the area allows it. There was about that much room (more or less)between the patrols at our WB course. That Patrol Method is able to be implemented within the constraints of YP.

The GBB "real" Patrol Method, however, requires that patrols be able to operate independently. That verson of the PM cannot be implemented within the constraints of YP. That's not the fault of WB, it's the fault of YP.

My suggestion? Push to get the BSA to amend YP to state 2-deep leadership is required *if* adults are at a scouting function. Leave it to the CO if the troop will be allowed to implement GBB's Patrol Method. THEN we heap blame and scorn on WB for not teaching it.

Right now, a WB course that teaches GBB's Patrol method would be a colossal waste of timeM

You know, I think the BSA needs to have a "Set the Standards for the Scout Oath" conclave.

LDS gets to set the standard for "Duty to God", the Baptists and Catholics get "Morally Straight", the military organizations get "physically strong", the PTAs get "mentally awake", and all the service clubs get "Duty to Country".

You could always pack some abrasive into the knife and spend an episode of your favorite show working the implements open and closed. You can use toothpaste, valve grinding compound, the slurry from an oilstone, etc. Then, clean the abrasive out, put a drop of oil into each joint and you should be good.

Kudu,

There's no reason to go after WB and their "destruction" of GBB's "real" Patrol Method until you get national to rescind the policy requiring trained adult supervison of scouting activities.

Why would a Woodbadge Staffer go back home thinking that he or she can drive a patrol to the local 30 mile backpacking trail, drop them off at the trailhead Friday afternoon, and say "see you Sunday at the end"? GBB's "real" patrol method is forbidden as a matter of national policy.

What is your suggestion? That WB change to course to say "we're here to teach you about William Hillcourt's 'real' Patrol Method. Never mind that youth protection hooie that national 'requires', here's how your patrols need to camp and hike"?

I appreciate GBB's "real" patrol method, and I agree it would be far more effective at putting youth in real positions of leadership and responsibility. That being said, you can't have both the "real" Patrol Method and Youth Protection as it currently stands. Your argument shouldn't be against WB, it should be against the constraints placed on the Patrol Method by YP.

I know, it's a lot easier to rail agaisnt WB than it is to rail against YP, but there it is. Litigation killed GBB's Patrol Method, not WB.

Vol, I'll be more specific:

The BSA knows that emotionally stable gay men do not go after males whom they are responsible for, whether they are ministers, coaches, youth leaders, etc, etc. Gay *men* date gay *men*. The individuals who go after males in their charge, whether they are 8 or 18, are not doing so because they are gay but because they want to take advantage of youth whom they have an emotional hold over.

I'd be willing to bet you that exactly zero percent of the scout leaders who have been found guilty of molesting teenage males in their charge would self-identify as homosexual or bisexual.

So, semantics aside, gay men do not present a physical or sexual threat to boys in scouting. They present a moral threat. Anyone who believes the "gay scoutmasters will turn our kids gay or try to sneak into the showers with them" has been drinking the proverbial kool-aid. There's no need for that BS argument. The argument is a purely moral one, and officially, that's what the BSA stands on. Quite frankly, if you subscribe to a conservative Christian, Jewish or Islamic creed, that argument is enough.

Jugger,

Just keep in mind that the course may very well have been that "mountaintop experience" for other Scouters. As has been mentioned, the course is different things to different people...both participants and staffers.

As far as "barfing over Trustworthy" (was this a veiled reference to TGOL?) goes, I just remember that people are who they are, and the neckerchief slide doesn't hold fairy dust or mystical runes or divine blessings which change that. The oath says "do my best", and some Scouters' best invariably won't be the same as others'.

Eamonn, I think the BSA knows perfectly well gays aren't pedos...the BSA excludes them because 50% of scouts nationwide are chartered by conservative churches who soundly object to homosexuality on purely moral grounds, and the other 50% of scouts are charterd by organizations which quite frankly don't care if the BSA excludes gays or not.

Oak, there is no way to do it with the "least amount of shockwaves", because doing it at all would result in the vast majority of troops and packs having to find new chartering organizations.

Considering how and where they were made the past several years, $55 is about what they're worth.

I wonder if Bemidji mills will still make the red jacks form now on.

Schiff, I think you are confusing the difference in "official method of scouting" and "a" method of scouting.

The uniform as a central principle of the Boy Scouts has been in effect from it's inception. It's not just "a" method of scouting, it's one of the founding principles, along with the patrol. That it took 80 years to call it that in a book is besides the point.

Eagle, I would tell these adults that Scouting is not a "do as I say, not as I do" enterprise.

You guys really think parents (and scouts, if the lads are encouraged to work off the price of their uniform themselves) are going to be real giggled up at the prospect of buying another shirt and the sew-on accoutrements that go with it?

BadenP, scouts are still allowed to build 3 story pioneering towers and 50' long bridges...it's just a matter of letting them do it.

Granted, we can't build a 3 story tower and then freeclimb up to wave semaphore flags from the top, or the 50' rope bridge over a 20' drop to a shallow rocky creek, but the big projects themselves can (and should) still be done.

I think they won't and I think Joebob hit on why.

It looks like the BSA is trying to promote full uniform wear in more environments for more activities, where the necker would likely get ditched and a collared shirt is more practical.

Besides, if the troop likes the collarless look they can tuck the collar under when wearing the necker.

LeV, agin, I recognize your disdain for Regean, but you need to face some simple facts:

We were not at war with anyone during Iran-Contra. Reagan neither levied war against the US nor did he adhere to an enemy. Giving a country aid is not treason if you are not at war with them. Note that Americans caught spying for Russia are charged with espionage, not treason, because even though Russia and the US were antagonists, they were not at war with each other.

Further, the actions were not sedition. If they were, the House had the duty to impeach Reagan (and they had the votes to do so) and attempt to remove him from office. Further, if he in fact committed sedition against the Constitution, the US military itself had the duty to remove him from office.

So, either Reagan didn't commit treson and/or sedition, or he did, and both the Democratic House and every member of the US military failed in their SWORN duty to defend the Constitution.

Step 1: remove all porta-potties

Step 2: purchase tarps, cord, TP, ziplock bags, trowels and 1 set of post hole diggers.

Step 3: locate "latrine line" in accordance with Leave No Trace

Step 4: Each patrol instructed to dig a hole 3' deep with post hole diggeres a couple of feet from a tree.

Step 5: Each patrol then (if desired) uses 3 poles and cord to lash a privacy tarp around their hole, and poles and cord to lash a latrine seat. The lazy can simply tie a loop of cord around the tree to hold on.

Step 6: Give each patrol a trowel to stick in the excavated dirt to throw a scoop of dirt over each latrine use, roll of TP goes on handle or trowel or end of latrine seat, ziplock bag goes over TP to keep it relatively dry.

That will solve dirty portapotties.

SR450,

Maybe that's just how I saw it because that's what I was expecting to see.

Since it's national that comes up with the WB syllabus, I took the course to be a "window into the mind of national". I know that's not what the book says or how the course was presented.

emb021,

I didn't say each participant wrote 5 tickets, I meant tickets, plural, as "we all sat down and put together our tickets". Although, by the time mine got signed, I had written 5 tickets...anyways, the workbook is pretty clear that it's 5 goals. If the ticket was just the capstone to put into practice what you learned, you could have a reasonable ticket that only takes a couple of months at most. Why else have a ticket that takes 12 months or so to complete, if there isn't some time to think about why you're doing it built into it?

LeV, Reagan pushed his Constitutional authority to the limit, but he didn't overstep it.

Iran was not at war with us.

Further, I suggest you read Article 2. Don't just copy/paste some quips, READ it. Further, don't confuse the DOI with the USC...one is the philosophy of the land, the other is the law of the land.

I didn't ignore Iran-Contra and Sedition; nothing Reagan did rose to that level. There are plenty of checks Congress has on the President.

Keep in mind that Reagan did all this with a Demmo House. They had the votes necessary to impeach him if they wished. They couldn't have found him guilty (they didn't control 2/3 of the Senate), but the act of impeaching him would've been an indicator that they thought he was violating the Constitution.

Eagle, it should make sense now, if you look at it from the right points of view.

First, WB is about teaching you the "corporate side" of Scouting. At the National level, the BSA isn't a youth program, it's a corporation, and knowing how and why that corporation thinks and operates the way it does can help you present a better program.

Second, in many councils, it is the door into Council-level operations. True, some of the best mentors and leaders you will ever find have never gone to WB, but part of "Troop/Pack Operation" includes interfacing with the District and Council...and in many areas those beads are the key to that door. In other areas it may be something else, but many use WB.

October Sky is a study on peer-to-peer teenage leadership and adult-youth mentorship. The BSA isn't the only organization which uses it. You weren't watching it for fun. The staff should've made that clear. Same as the military using clips from movies to dissect leadership breakdowns or tactical errors. All the same, the movie in it's entirety isn't necessary.

The tickets aren't just about improving yourself or the organization...they should force reflection of why you're in scouting to that extent in the first place. Remember, WB isn't required except for very few scouters in the council. Trainers, National Jambo adult leaders, etc. You can be a perfectly great SM or CM without those beads.

Bottom line, it is no more a good or poor use of time than any other training the BSA puts on, except training in unit accounting, youth protection and safety (which IMO are by far the most essential).

Platypus, the scouts already have a peer review system. Nobody calls it that, and it's not official, but it exists among every group of teenagers, including every troop, team, crew, post and ship in the nation.

Those who don't have the support of their peers are run out of the troop long before the SM is left deciding whether or not to appoint the boy as an Instructor because the troop won't even nominate him for Scribe.

There is nothing in the Constitution barring the President from supporting an insurrection in another country.

Next, as we've both pointed out, treason is defined by the Constitution, and managing someone else's war isn't part of it, no matter if 75 million people are killed. I didn't say I was an expert, I said I read the US Constitution.

As far as quals, after I took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same", I took an interest on what the aforementioned document actually says, since I was swearing allegiance to it. Does it make me an expert? No, I simply know what it says. You learn all sorts of things when you actually read the US Constitution. There's not a whole lot to it. The US Code is lengthy, but the Constitution is only several pages long. Treason is defined in a single sentence.

Now, it may be your personal opinion that fomenting or managing a war in another country is treason, but as long as you aren't levying war against the United States or adhering to an enemy of the United States, the US Constituion (the legal authority in this matter) disagrees.

Anyhow, it's only a sentence. I would read it before further pontificating about who committed treason by doing what.

platypus, I'll halfway agree with you.

The kids probably would add MBs like orienteering, pioneering and wilderness survival, and drop others like family life and personal fitness. Eagle is only as easy or hard as they already make it. Some kids have it by 13, others slide in with only days to spare, and 98% or so don't get it at all. When 98% of a group isn't getting something, it's obviously not easy to get.

OA an Eagle requirement? Are you serious? While boys universally want more adventure, they don't universally want more OA. I've mentioned this on the OA board, but the OA itself is it's own worst enemy. There are a lot of troops out there with no participation in the OA for one reason that the OA doesn't like to admit: the boys don't care. The boys aren't calling the chapter for elections, boys who get elected don't bother to go through Ordeal and boys who go to Ordeal "sash and dash". While some troops out there have strong OA participation, that isn't the rule. Far from it. I'd venture a guess that if the OA disappeared tomorrow, half the scouts in the average council wouldn't even notice and another quarter wouldn't care.

A more realistic thing the boys would do? Make every Eagle Scout an honorary member of the OA.