mds3d

15 minutes ago, yknot said:

Baden Powell was also an avowed fascist. He admired Hitler's youth movement and called Mein Kampf  a "wonderful book". Winston Churchill hated Hindus and Palestinians and wanted to use poison gas against rebellious native indigenous populations. His stalwart defense of Britain helped stem the tide of WWII, but it was based on his vision of the preservation of the British empire. FDR opposed anti lynching bills and put Japanese Americans in concentration camps. LBJ is credited with language so racist and disgusting that it's hard to read modern day despite the fact that's he's credited with some of the greatest Civil Rights advancements of our time. Although he's credited with changing his stripes, Harry Truman was remarkably racist. So, too, Woodrow Wilson, the founder of the League of Nations, the progenitor of the United Nations. McClellan, a Union general, fought for the Union but supported slavery and opposed abolition. Former president Jimmy Carter praised a lifelong segregationist, Lester Maddox. Charles de Gaulle.  Ronald Reagan. Eisenhower. All guilty of racist comments based on modern day standards. I am not trying to argue fine points of history, my argument is that people are a product of their time, and we  need to look at them through that lens. Scrubbing monuments and parks and streets and buildings of names that give some indication of that relevant history is just "feel good" PC activism and is totally anti-intellectual and anti history.

You still haven't given any reason that these people deserved to have monuments, parks, or buildings named after them in the first place.  We look past many of the negative things about the people you mentioned because of their positive legacy.  Lee and Jackson and Forrest didn't leave positive legacies.  They left a legacy of rebelling against their country in favor of defending the practice of slavery. 

25 minutes ago, yknot said:

Navybone, it is completely about erasing history. Or, if you prefer, editing it. Lee made war  upon "armed men" only. Sherman burned to the ground and made war on women and children -- his helpless countrymen who were victims of where they were born or what side their menfolk chose.  Lee lost the war. Sherman won. Sherman did reprehensible things, but his cause was just. Lee was a gentleman, but fighting for a horrific cause. Under your litmus test,  there are few American historical figures worthy of emulation or celebration because they were all products of their time and all did things today we would consider abhorrent. And I'll leave you with this. Baden Powell was an acknowledged racist. Should we strike his name from scout history?  

 

For not being a southern apologist, you sure talk like one. I was born and raised in the south.  The problem is why most of these things are even there. Most of these named things came in the 1920s to 1970s, long after the Civil War was fought.  All that did come in an era of Jim Crow laws, the KKK, and the Civil Rights movement.  We can acknowledge these men in ways that don't involve building them statues. We can learn from the things they did right without putting their names on buildings. 

Sherman is hated by many in the south, but naming a school in the north after him (PS 87 in NYC), doesn't have the same effect as things like Nathan Bedford Forrest High School in the south.  How do you think African American scouts and parents felt about having a confederate general's name on their son's scout shirt?

General Lee fought to keep people as property. No amount of gentlemanly tactics makes up for that. 

Acknowledging history and honoring historical figures are different things.  There is no reason that anything should be named after the leader of a traitor army. Yes, the people themselves are always flawed, but if their well known deeds and legacy are honorable then it seems appropriate they be honored. 

Quote

However, is it appropriate for these discussions to be used as a platform for members to express incorrect information or inflammatory opinions about our faith?

I think we are tracking here. This is a forum about scouting.  However, up until the statement by your leader this was publicly a matter of practicality for scouts and the LDS church.  After that statement, the LDS church is now faulting the BSA with some implication that it has to do with recent changes.  These recent changes inspire passion for many but are a point of belief for your church. I think it makes sense that people would be riled up. 

Quote

Is it ever right to deride in any way a religion or its leadership, to make accusations or spread calumny about another's faith? 

Absolutely it is.  Not all of us believe in the eventual salvation of all those who are good (I don't know, do you?). For other faiths yours may represent the other side in a battle for souls. You need to understand that that fact underlies many opinions about your church.  

Quote

it behooves us to speak with nothing but respect and kindness about the religions of others 

Even if we believe that other religions may be leading people away from eternal salvation? Goodwill between faiths is a struggle in person and it is so much worse online.  It would be better if this were just not a subject discussed in a scouting forum.  Of course, I think many are trying to make that point - That specific religion should have never been a part of the scouting discussion.  The has been for a really long time and it has gotten the BSA in trouble in more ways than one.  

You are free to believe what you want.  I am free to believe what I want. Most importantly, the moderators are free to keep us from discussing it here.  From someone who also rarely reads positive things about my church online, don't take it personally. 

It seems clear that this church leader's statement is a reversal of the all the previous reasoning provided by the LDS church regarding the split.  I wonder a couple of things.  First, I wonder why someone would make this statement when an effort to portray the opposite seems to have been the plan before now. Second, I wonder what actually changed that they think it mattered.  The LDS troops around here didn't really participate with the rest of us in a way that we would have had much influence on them.  

I hope that this move is good for the BSA in the long run.  While I continue to believe that "morally straight" is important for scouts.  I don't think it should have ever been the role of National to define what that meant. I am also glad that there are many girls getting the opportunities not provided by other US scouting organizations. 

What I think about the LDS or their program doesn't matter.  This is a scouting place and they have decided that their church isn't part of scouts anymore. 

On 11/15/2019 at 4:21 PM, Eagledad said:

It was not a 50/50 of opinions for or against. When the gay issue started coming up, Dozens of posters attributed the membership loses to the gay issue. I was a district membership chair at the time and all tracking of membership losses were attributed 100% the program. Zero was attributed to social and political correctness. 

I do agree that the BSA carries a stigma, but it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with policy, folks just do not want to hassle with taking some kind of side.

Obviously the agenda is to take down any Christian related organization. The BSA is not specifically Christian, but it is labeled as one by the PC activists, so it’s a target. Is there hope for traditional values in any organization today?

Barry 

I am not sure which end of the "gay issue" you mean.  Around here Dale caused packs previously sponsored by parent-teacher organizations and meeting in elementary schools to have to find new accommodations.   In our district alone, the reversal of stance caused no less than 4 churches to decided scouting no longer aligned with their values.  One of these churches sponsored a pack, troop, and crew.  Granted, only one openly told the BSA that it was why they were leaving, but the leadership was pretty clear with their congregations that it was the reason. 

I think there we are feeling the effects of both sides of this argument.  First people left (or didn't join) because we were discriminatory. Then another group left because we "abandoned traditional values" without the first group really coming back. The statement of religious principle still prevents many others from viewing us as non-discriminatory. 

Admitting girls should have set us up for a bit of revival by putting us in the news in a good light.  The problem is that it has come as the exact same time as the abuse scandals.  I still don't view this as a program problem. We mostly have a PR problem.  

20 hours ago, SSScout said:

Is he really?   He is a manipulative brat who has learned to play his game his way.  He gets a rise out of his fellow Scouts.  He knows if he couches his story the right way (oh, he told the truth all right, his version) his parents will always come to his defense.  He wants his parents'  attention, no matter how he gets it.  Language, topic?   He learned it from the same people anyone learns language, dad, (mom?) Uncle,  TV ( which the parents do not censor). He likes the sexy talk because it makes him feel grown up and superior to his "baby" fellow Scouts.  He has learned how the "he=men" talk.  Locker room talk will be his forte.

 

You have no evidence for any of this.  You are making assumptions about a kid you have never met.  You have no idea what his motivation is (you offer a single possibility).  It is possible that his parent's would have come to his defense no matter what.  He could have been 100% truthful with his parents and they could have still reacted like this, some parents do this with teachers no matter how bad their kid is.  You don't think scout age kids learn language from friends at school? I certainly did.  

I went through a similar stage around my early years in scouts.  I had a wake up moment during an interaction with some good friends and a good teacher who called me out.

Assumptions without evidence is 90% of what is wrong with the discussion on the internet. 

1 hour ago, tnmule20 said:

Thank you.  The Troop is storming right now.  Adults and Youth alike.  I'm not sure how to get it back on track.  I am a new Scoutmaster and the help that I was promised has not come to fruition.  It's hard to get help when you don't know who will show up week to week.  No consistency.  Scouts seems to always take a back seat to whatever else it going on.  Plus, I don't think anyone knows what their position entails, including the CC.

This sounds like a good opportunity to have your Scout Executive come and talk to your unit (or the unit commissioner if you have one) about everyone's roles and how to get reorganized.  

The feedback I got is that most parents aren't happy about the late notice but I don't think any of the troops are loosing scouts over it. I had a chat with the COR's trying to get them to help out.  One CO covered the difference entirely, one covered half.  The other troop is pretty well-to-do and will be fine I think.

2 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

It was not required, because it  WAS, largely THE program.  "Scouting is Outing" was the motto.  Boy Scouting was camping and hiking. Requiring camping is a valid effort to try and get adults to do what they should be doing voluntarily.  That effort peaked, then crashed in 2017.  

Scouts are growing less as people because we reach so few of them  The "bait' as B-P out it was the outdoor program in the patrol context - so different from school and all the other adult-run activities.  They can get to computers anywhere.  

"Sales" are WAY down over the previous "models," but the advocates of what worked are old fogies nostalgic for the good old days.  Darn right.  It worked, and we will never know if it would still work because our lords and masters don't even know what it was that worked, and "risk management" trumps sales.

I am going to try to answer both posts without quoting both.

I am glad our experiences differ and I am sorry yours has been frustrating.  None of the troops I work with have had a lock-in used on JTE (two did have one last year that was part of a service project for their CO). I do think "indoor" scouting experiences are valid.  Many merit badges are indoor focused and I don't think there is anything wrong with having a variety of experiences available to scouts. 

I acknowledged my mistake about the 2016 requirements when correct by another poster.  I still don't think that a single year of requiring 6 outings is indicative of a crash (return to 2015 requirements) in 2017. 

I think you are wrong about what is causing scouts to struggle.  I think first scouts started to be very uncool.  Then it was no longer aligned with the average morals of the nation (right or wrong, and it still really isn't). We now sit in this place where we are too conservative for some and too liberal/inclusive for others.  Many CO's in our area dropped scouts for being too restrictive (back during the full restriction on the 3 G's). Now many others have dropped scouts for "abandoning their moral compass" without us having picked up any of the ones we lost before.  Now we struggle with the abuse scandals that (again, right or wrong) are really coming to light today.   I talk with so many potential CO's that are just worried about the "risk" of having a scout troop because of what they see on the news.  They aren't anti-BSA (many are Eagles or Alumni) they just think it would be better if someone else took care of supporting scouts.  

I'll ask a positive question.  As a UC, what can I help my troops do that will improve scouting given what I have to work with today? As far as I can tell, they practice the patrol method and have a good outdoor program (8ish activities outside of camp).  I understand that national has to focus on YPT and G2SS issues right now, and I can't change that. So, what do you suggest that Unit focused leaders do?

50 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

We get the car for them and part of that is for rewards, part is for maintenance, etc.  Last year we had to buy new braking strips for the end of the track.

As for awards... belt loops are $1.50  Webelos pins are $2 a pop.  Outdoor Activity patch, Whittlin Chip, etc  It can all add up

 

That's interesting.   I'm not sure if it is official or not, but the last time I asked, our district owned the pinewood derby track and "rented" it to packs. The rent paid for maintenance.  

I still maintain that an outdoor program is mostly a Unit level issue.  There are still good units that have good outdoor programs.  Looking back at the calendars for my units, all three had 7-8 outdoor outings  this year plus summer camp.  Two also sent contingents to a high adventure base.  They also had other things going on in addition including service projects outside of the Eagle planned ones.  A common theme around here is to go less but go bigger.  The only car camping any of them did were camporees. 

I know there isn't a lot of push or guidance from national on an outdoor program but most of the units in our district seem to have it under control without it.  

@5thGenTexan

Why $12 for pinewood derby?  What other than the car does that cover?  Do you really spend $30/scout/year on awards?  I don't do packs so I really don't know what is normal for awards.

15 hours ago, HashTagScouts said:

history of rank requirements if you are interested: http://www.troop97.net/pdfbin/bsa_ranks.pdf

Thanks for this!  This is really interesting. 

13 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Here's the history I could find here:

• 1948 - 1st Class - 1 night of camping
• 1965 - 1st Class - 2 overnight trips
• 1972 - no camping requirement
• 1976 - earn camping skill award ( 2 overnight trips)
• 1990 - 1 overnight camp for each rank.  3 overnight camps total
• 2016 - T-1 night. 2nd Class-3 nights.  1st Class-6 nights

If we're at 3 nights now, we didn't even get there until 1990.  Seems to me that we've actually gotten more outdoor focused over time.

 

I was just about to do this same thing.  I find it really interesting that it took until 1948 to even have overnight camping as a requirement and that we are actually (with the exception of 2016) at the peak of camping requirements.  

4 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Seems that 1st class would be 3 nights of camping

• Tenderfoot now - Spend at least one night on a patrol or troop campout. Sleep in a tent you have helped pitch.
• Second Class now - Since joining Scouts BSA, participate in five separate troop/patrol activities, at least three of which must be held outdoors. Of the outdoor activities, at least two must include overnight camping
• First Class now - Since joining Scouts BSA, participate in 10 separate troop/patrol activities, at least six of which must be held outdoors. Of the outdoor activities, at least three must include overnight camping

He neglected to add that the requirements dropped back down to 3 immediately after in 2017.  2016 was the peak of camping requirements.  

I also find it interesting the contrast between the nostalgia for the "good old days" in threads like this, and the assertion that YPT has made abuse a problem of the past.  Scouting wasn't perfect then and it isn't perfect now.  The important things to me are - Are scouts learning and growing as people as a result of the program?  Are they safe while doing so?  I think that we are doing a pretty good job of both in many circumstances.  

11 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

The # of overnights and been increased in 2016, in part to get things back to outdoor emphasis as it had been in prior to the 90's.  It didn't last too long, obviously, before it was changed back down to 3.  

I did skip over the 2016 list as I was trying to get back as far as I could. I don't think that a one year increase then back to the norm is indicative of  "sharply reduced" camping requirements.  Maybe since the 60's but not in recent memory.  

I did find that Q&A as well.  I missed it before.  I do think there is a difference between what they describe (scouting activities) vs what you did, "playing video games."  I have never had a unit use something like you describe to satisfy JTE requirements.  

Quote

The most recent reduction was in 2017 - just ages ago!  The First Class camping requirement was reduced from six overnighters to three. (It had been that trivial before.)  And remember, for Journey to "Excellence" purposes, all  "campouts" may be indoors.

This seems to be wrong.  The farthest that usscouts goes is the 2002-2003 rank requirements (as far as I can tell). First Class requirement #3 reads as follows :"Since joining, have participated in ten separate troop/patrol activities (other than troop/patrol meetings), three of which included camping overnight."

That seems really similar to the current requirement.  

Quote

The original Wood Badge course (1948-1971), which I staffed as an experimental "Junior Staffer," [QM helper] in 1959

I'm glad for context of "my time" vs "your time" as a scout.  I thought my scouting experience in the 90's and early 2000's was pretty great.  I have no reference for scouts was like back then.  That version of scouting has been gone for a while, but it wasn't perfect then either. 

BTW, I think our troop ran the patrol method pretty well, as do my troops today (as much as they can within the current YPT guidelines).  

5 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

 

The outdoor program has been deemphasized.  An "overnight campout," includes a weekend "lock-in" playing video games per the BSA Q&A for Journey to "Excellence." Time allocated to courses to train adults  in the outdoor program has been sharply reduced.  Camping requirements for advancement have been sharply reduced.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you chose to quote me for your point, but where did you find this?  I am having a hard time finding this thing about a lock-in in the JTE materials.  

Do you have numbers for the camping requirements?  It doesn't seem to have changed much over my time.  

I am not sure what you mean about adult training?  What did we used to do that isn't done now?

9 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

Maybe. IMHO, nearly all MBC's are already unit leaders/committee members or registered family members in which case they already paid for a background check.

I have been unable to recruit anyone outside of scouting to become a MBC.  Once they see  the paperwork, they immediately are concerned with protecting their privacy.  This concern will only worsen with the broader information sharing in the new (2018?) background check form. 

For my troop's adult leaders, the fee increase in less concerning than the background check form.

Our council has a bunch of MBC's that aren't leaders in any other fashion.  Mostly they teach weird MBs at universities but some do the traditional thing.  It is our primary push for the Alumni association. It is a lot easier to get those of them with unique careers to sign up to teach the occasional merit badge than it is to get them to be commissioners or committee members (that push comes later, 😉 )

1 hour ago, MattR said:

We're now at

• $60 to national
• $200 to council
• $50 to unit (which we haven't changed in about 10 years)

I'm hoping the council will be limited to the $60. That would be a big win for us.

My understanding from everything I have seen is that they cannot charge more than national (for both adults and scouts).  I believe that they can charge separate program and insurance fees.  

42 minutes ago, MattR said:

But something to teach adults how to develop the youth. i.e., give us the tools to reach our aims. Spend an entire day on the nuts and bolts of patrol method. A day for the rest of the methods as well as turning any skill development into a game. A day or two using those skills to learn more in-depth outdoor skills. A day for developing high adventure trips. This is what I thought, or hoped, WB would be.

I'm going to help teach IOLS this weekend. The I stands for Introduction. There should be training for that one person in a troop that really want to excel at these skills. They will be the ones that develop the scout's skills. How to do it. How to teach it. How to make it fun. How to encourage using it. I have an hour to do all the knife and axe skills for both Baloo and Scouts. It's going to be a very brief introduction. "This is what it looks like. If you want to learn more, please call me."

Isn't this what Powderhorn is supposed to do somewhat (albeit geared toward a crew not a troop?

3 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

That is likely where your $24 goes.  We can spend quite a bit of money at CoH time, particularly after summer camp, when the number of merit badges earned can be significant.

Each merit badge your scout earns is $2.49, each rank patch is $1.99, we also give parent rank pins which are $2.49.  Position patches are $2.99.  It adds up quickly.

Re: position patches.  When I was a scout, we reused position patches.  We did it so much so that we had a stash of green ones that we still wore.  If a scout wanted to keep the one he wore (with the exception of the green ones) they had to buy a new one for the troop.  It saved a small amount as we only replaced them when they wore out. 

1 minute ago, Mom2Scout said:

We are up to $90 with the $60, $6 Council fee, and a $24 troop fee.  So yeah. 

What does that $24 pay for?

Nothing personal was meant.  I was more emotional in one of my responses than I meant to be and did not come off as scoutlike as I should have.  I apologize for that.  

@RememberSchiff Thanks for the reminder and perspective. 

3 minutes ago, yknot said:

First, I really don't care about the social stuff and I don't judge anyone because labels are the worst way to judge whether or not someone is a decent person and trustworthy around youth. I wish to dissociate from the "real men" comment. 
 

Second, I think the core of what I want from National is that it abide by the Scout Law. I think if it had used that as a litmus test for every decision made, many of these disconnects between the leadership, councils, and units, would go away. National right now is almost unrecognizable as a scouting organization in its operations and, in my humble opinion, has lost its way. 

So for you, it seems to be more about how they conduct business than the specific actions they take (or don't take). I think I can agree with that.  I think a lot of things come from a consuming concern for keeping scouts safe (both YPT and G2SS).  I don't think this focus is wrong, but I think it has gone too far in some places (mostly the G2SS).  

I think the finances of National worry me, but they won't break the program. They may cause us some hardship, but they won't break it.  Councils are where the program can be broken. 

2 hours ago, yknot said:

I know there are many well meaning people working at the National level. However, I would wager that a lot of rational people would say that somehow, the ship has lost its rudder. Frankly, I think it's time for local units to work toward a down-up reorganization, because our parent organization is clearly not meeting our needs. Successful organizations do not operate this way. You are attempting to normalize something that is largely dysfunctional and unresponsive. The idea of National patting us on the head and saying, "Go, shepherd, go tend your sheep and don't worry about all this," is not going to help BSA survive long term.  We're right to question. We're right to demand more. We're right to look for ways to make this relationship more functional. If we're in this for the scout, we're compelled to. 

I'm curious.  Other than what you think National has handled incorrectly, what do you want from National that they are not providing? What "more" do you want?

37 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

Withdrawn from social engineering?  First they invited gay youth to be members, then gay men to be Scout Masters.  Transgenders?  Oh what the heck, y'all come on, too!  And since BSA now allows girls to be in the BOY Scouts, you don't even have to stick to the gender you pick.  Duty to God?  Don't ask, don't tell; okay?

WHAT TRADITIONAL SOCIAL BOUNDARIES ARE LEFT?  I'd say that the Left has departed the field in utter victory.  What else could they hope to accomplish?  Drive all the straight males from the program?

 

Wait. 

Maybe if BSA de-emphasizes the outdoors in the program, all the real men will get bored and drop out....

This argument has come and gone. Scouts is not the holder of some specific moral code (and I'm not sure it ever should have been). Why are you so opposed to gay youth and scouters? Should those youth not have the opportunity to experience scouting? Has the BSA forced you to accept scouters you didn't want as leaders in your troop? The girl thing is decided, get over it.  No one is forcing you to lead girls.  

Again, outdoor emphasis works best at the UNIT level.  No one is keeping your troop from hiking, camping, canoeing, repelling, and what ever else you want to do.  

Real men? Are real men only interested in the outdoors? Are men (young and old) who are interested in other things less real men? 

I kind of hope the BSA runs people with your attitude out.  It certainly isn't helping.