Jump to content

NJCubScouter

Moderators
  • Content Count

    7363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

Posts posted by NJCubScouter


  1. 15 minutes ago, cocomax said:

    Were these directives disseminated to councils by GSUSA for each council to use and customize and post as they see fit?

    Well, based on this language the policy certainly seems to be coming from GSUSA National:

    Girl Scouts of the USA prohibits events co-sponsored or cobranded with the Boy Scouts.

    In fact, it says that a few times.


  2. 33 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

    When GM declared bankruptcy a decade back, the pre-packaged deal formed a new company that purchased the GM name, Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac brands, a bunch of factories and facilities, and some financial obligations.  A month after the filing the new company started business as General Motors and the old GM took whatever was left and ground through the process.  If the BSA is looking for a way to significantly restructure the organization it's not out of the question I suppose.

    I think that gets a little tricky when you are talking about a not-for-profit corporation.  There's no stock to transfer.  There really aren't any "owners."  And even if you could figure out a way to do that, the Congressional Charter probably complicates things.  Transferring it would probably require passage of a bill by both Houses of Congress and signature by the president.  If I were the BSA, I would want to stay as far away as possible from the federal legislative process right now.


  3. I think Neal is correct, this falls under the "appropriate attire" rule.  Obviously it is right on the edge, otherwise there would be no need to talk about it.  I usually err on the side of "let's find a more appropriate alternative if we can," which in this case tells me the Scout who has been robbed should be wearing gym shorts over his underwear.  But that's me.

     

    • Upvote 1

  4. I don't think "show" and "demonstrate" necessarily mean different things.  The meaning of each one may be affected by the specific thing you are expected to "show" or "demonstrate" but I do not think that in any of the instances mentioned here, what the Scout is required to do would be affected by using the other word instead.  (I use both words quite often in legal writing, and I use them interchangeably, for whatever that's worth.)

    • Upvote 1

  5. 4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

    Truth is the boys are going to have to put up with this stuff for quite awhile because women are the thing these days. It's on the news, the movies, and sports.

    (Bold-face provided by me.)

    Seriously, Barry?  I have no question that you are deeply concerned about the impact of this change on the boys, and you are absolutely sure that you're right, and I get that. Only time will tell whether a large number of boys will leave the program.  But at the same time, I can't help but wonder whether there is also a certain amount of resentment involved, as indicated in the quotation above.


  6. 21 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

    One does not have to read between the lines of the precisely-worded announcement.  They are severing Scouting from their faith in every meaningful manner and that is their right.  They want their youth to participate in their program, and will not overtly encourage Scouting.  With that will be a discontinuation of support and the faith’s dominant presence in the operational and policy-making committees of our organization.  We will no longer need to be concerned that our decisions will run afoul of the preferences of the faith’s leadership.  I thank them for their past interest in the BSA and wish them well.  We will be fine as an organization

    I agree with that.  My question was about @The Latin Scot's statement that he was looking into forming an "LDS-minded unit" that follows "LDS values."  I am not sure what values he has in mind.  If it is things like The Golden Rule, help the poor, thou shalt not steal, etc., great, because those are Scouting values as well.  If it is things like, the troop doesn't camp on Sunday so the members can fulfill their religious obligations according to LDS church, that's fine too, but it is usually up to the CO to impose something like that, and I don't know what CO would impose something like that other than the LDS church itself, which by definition is NOT going to be the CO after the end of the year.  If it means no girls in a pack, and/or no "girls' troop", that's up to the CO as well.


  7. 17 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

    My comment goes to the BSA organization broadly.  Individual COs and the COR continue to be able to assure unit operations are expressive of the particular faith values of the CO.

    That's right, and since neither the LDS Church nor any of its subdivisions will be CO for any BSA units, I can't see a situation where the CO would impose "LDS values."  Well actually, I can see one, but to my understanding it is discouraged by the BSA.  That is to have the CO be "Friends of Troop 123, Inc."  If the majority of the directors or trustees of the corporation happen to be members of LDS, acting in their individual capacities and not as part of the church, then yes, I suppose they could say the unit will follow "LDS values."  What's interesting is that the unit is not chartered to a religious organization (even though everyone involved in the CO may be of the same religion), and therefore it would not be able to follow "local option" on a certain membership issue.


  8. The problem is that because a person can't really be a "Scouts BSA", they have "detached" the description of the member from the name of the program.  A member of Cub Scouts is a Cub Scout.  A member of Boy Scouts was a Boy Scout (though often just called a "Scout.")  A member of Venturing is a Venturer. (Right?)  A member of Sea Scouts is a Sea Scout. So now, a member of Scouts BSA is a... Scout.  It breaks the pattern, but given the BSA's selection of a name, there really is no other choice.  "Scouts BSA" really is not a proper name for a program, in my opinion, but that's what it is.


  9. On 2/12/2019 at 3:41 PM, shortridge said:

    Holy cow, H&S has a sense of humor!

    I wouldn't go that far.  :)

    On 2/11/2019 at 5:40 PM, NealOnWheels said:

    2018: There must be a registered female adult leader over 21 in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader over 21 must be present for any activity involving female youth.

    2019: There must be a registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over must be present for any activity involving female youth.

    I don't think there is any difference in intent there.  I don't think they previously meant you have to be 22.  It is just a clearer way of saying the same thing.

    • Upvote 1

  10. 23 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    I agree she should not be given the Eagle Scout (she needs to start over and the BSA response is spot on) but I would support the BSA in awarding her the Silver Buffalo award.  She was a strong and vocal advocate for adding girls to the program and while I think others reasons caused BSA to change their policy, she was the most visible reason behind it.  Therefore, given in part to her work, tens of thousands of girls have this new opportunity.

    Works for me.  Of course, that isn't going to happen.


  11. On 1/29/2019 at 10:34 PM, Treflienne said:

    @qwazse  I know that.   And as I have said previously,  it would be brand suicide for GSUSA to go with "Guides".  There is very little recognition of the term in the U.S.  Our little Brownies are always surprised to hear that elsewhere in the world girl scouts are called "girl guides".

    But the made-up name I used in this post was "Girlscout",  echoing Girlguiding's running together of the two words.

    My suggestion had been that the BSA consider using "Girl Guides", but people here had all kinds of reasons why that would be bad.  I'm still not so sure, but it's moot at this point.

    • Like 1

  12. 23 hours ago, FireStone said:

    Still raises an interesting point, though. If the BSA successfully won that case to protect their rights to "Scout" in a name, wouldn't that mean they were determined to have such rights in the first place? Wonder if that case could in any way be brought into consideration in the GSUSA case. 

    I think you can rest assured that the BSA's attorneys will bring up that decision in this case.  Whether it has the effect on this case that you think it might have is another issue.  I believe the legal situation is considerably more murky than Tahawk, for example, thinks it is.  There are at least two factual scenarios involved here, one is that the BSA is using the word "Scout" without any qualifier as to "Boy" or "Girl", the second is that the GSUSA was able to find a number of examples of BSA councils using the phrase "Girl Scout" (or "girl Scout" or similar phrases) to recruit for BSA programs.  It sure seems to me like those councils were violating the GSUSA's trademark.  Whether that conduct is attributable to National is another isse.


  13. We have one female DE (although I'm not sure they use that title anymore after they reorganized everything) and there was another one who left about 5-6 years ago, but I don't think our council has had any at a higher level than that. I suspect the percentage of female DE's and Field Directors is considerably higher than that of SE/CEO's.

    • Like 1

  14. 1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

    The GSUSA runs the risk that the court could say that the term "scout" is generic and as such, no one may copyright it.

    But the BSA has won trademark infringement cases that only involved "Scout" (as opposed to "Boy Scout"), which implies that the courts must have found "Scout" is NOT generic.  I do not know of any change in the last several years, or decades, that would produce a different result now that the BSA is on the other side of a lawsuit.


  15. On 1/22/2019 at 9:31 AM, Eagledad said:

    I will say that I have felt hostility toward white and religious people from members on this forum.

    Hostility toward white people in this forum?  I have never seen it. It has always been my assumption that the vast majority of members of this forum are "white."  (I am using the broad definition of "white" here.) That is partly based on the fact that to my knowledge, ALL of the people who have chosen to have a photo of themselves as their avatar appear to be white.  I am not sure that anyone has ever identified themselves as being other than "white," with the possible exception of The Latin Scot who has identified himself as Latino (which doesn't necessarily mean he isn't or is "white") and I believe there was someone a ways back who identified himself as at least partly Native American.  So just who do you think is being hostile toward white people.

    As for religious people, I have seen far more hostility toward NON-religious people than religious people in this forum.

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1

  16. On 1/20/2019 at 10:00 PM, Oldscout448 said:

    ... they think they are jews although they seem to mostly from Jamaica   Lost tribes maybe?)

    Black Hebrew Israelites (aka Black Hebrews, African Hebrew Israelites, and Hebrew Israelites) do not think they are Jews.  They think they are descendants of the Hebrews and Israelites of the Bible. Some apparently believe that they are the ONLY descendants of the Biblical people, and that the Jews of today are not.  Some of them are hate groups, some are not.  Obviously this group that was involved in this incident is a hate group.

    • Thanks 1

  17. 1 hour ago, SSScout said:

    The "Baby Boomers"  then fell short in making sure THEIR kids had the outdoor experience, the patriotic experience. 

    And also did not "produce" nearly as many children in the first place, which I think is the largest factor in the membership decline in the BSA in the 70's and after.

    • Upvote 1

  18. On 12/22/2018 at 1:45 AM, qwazse said:

    The abused deserve restoration.

    Can that be achieved by winning damages?

    Whether it can or not isn’t really the question, in my opinion.  The question is, even if money is an ineffective remedy, what other remedy is there?  None that I am aware of. (Well, therapy, but that’s far from a complete solution either... and it isn’t free, which brings us back to money.)

×