NJCubScouter

17 hours ago, 69RoadRunner said:

I like how the article mentions the #MeToo movement, which is completely unrelated to the lawsuit. A clear case of a journalist tossing in personal views.

I think this case is about trademark infringement (as the GSUSA complaint says it is), but I guess that's just me being a silly lawyer.

19 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

From the article:

Looks like BSA lost that case. I don't see how stare decisis would be ignored when GSUSA tries to take a second bite at the apple.

I could be wrong, but I think the Girl Scouts won that case because they were calling themselves "Girl Scouts", with "Scout" modified by "Girl."  I don't think the outcome would have been the same if they had been just using the name Scouts, with no gender identification - as the BSA is doing now.  I am not saying the GSUSA is necessarily going to win this case, but I do think it could go either way.

19 hours ago, qwazse said:

It's a pity nobody here was suggesting a name to National that would avoid wrong impressions.

I suggested "Girl Guides."  But that probably would have caused a different lawsuit.

On 10/30/2018 at 10:42 PM, hiker67 said:

Zinke’s own agency watchdog just referred him to the Justice Department

It makes a fellow proud to be a Boy Scout.

Google Translate is good for entertainment purposes only.  Try translating something from English to another language, and then paste the result and translate that back into English.  It's good for a laugh. 

2 minutes ago, SSF said:

That's a pretty damning statement to make against boys. 

So, because of this incident, involving this particular SPL, you feel with great certainty that boys will no doubt do something similar to girls?

Let's talk about this particular boy.  The fact that he forced another boy to sit still while he rubbed his barely-clothed genitals on the other boy's head does raise the prospect that he may do so again, to somebody else, of whatever gender.  It also raises the distinct possibility that he may do something worse to someone else, of whatever gender.  It also raises the question of whether this is the first time he has done that to someone.

1 hour ago, fred johnson said:

So, I always cringe when I hear that if any kid needs scouting that kid needs scouting.

Maybe there is some sort of Scouting program in the local juvenile detention facility.  I say that not to be mean, but just as a reminder that this kid committed what would be a "felony" if he were an adult.

I hate the idea of reporting a kid to council, but as with everything else, there is a "line" where conduct is no longer in a grey area.  The actions of the SPL cross the line.  I am not sure about the Scouts who watched and encouraged, but the perpetrator definitely crossed the line.  He has also committed what would be (in my state) a serious juvenile offense, which would be a fourth-degree crime (the lowest level, but still a crime) if he were an adult.  The crime of "criminal sexual contact" is defined, (again, in New Jersey) as an “intentional touching by the victim or actor, either directly or through clothing, of the victim’s or actor’s intimate parts for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the victim or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the actor.”  (Bold-face added.) The contact described clearly meets that definition.  If he had done it once, and stopped when he was asked to stop, it might be difficult to prove "intent", but since he did it four more times after being asked to stop, "intent" is clearly there.  The above does not constitute legal advice and, in any event, may not apply in your state.

8 minutes ago, EagleForever said:

but the other leaders just expect me to know exactly where each boy is in their books and where to pick up from.

What position(s) do you hold in the pack and troop?  It sounds like you are probably an Assistant Scoutmaster in the troop, in which case it is not your responsibility to know where any Scout is in his book.  In the pack, if you are the Den Leader or an Assistant Den Leader who has been specifically designated to keep track of the Cubs' advancement, maybe it is your responsibility.   If you are a committee member, not.  It is not clear from your post whether you are 21 yet, so I don't know what positions you are eligible to hold.

19 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

The average age for earning Eagle Scouts is 17 (plus some months), but Scouts can (and do) earn it at a younger age.

Right on both counts.  I am not sure what the average is in the troop I currently serve, but I would estimate that at least 60% of those who make Eagle in the troop finish the requirements within two months before their 18th birthday.  I am not even counting the board of review in that estimate.  Probably 30-40% have the EBOR after their 18th birthday.  Apparently the adult leaders in EagleForever's troop have somehow twisted that statistic into the idea that you are supposed to make Eagle right before you turn 18.  Obviously that is incorrect.  You are supposed to make it when you make it, as long as it is sometime before the 18th birthday, if you make it at all.

11 minutes ago, EagleForever said:

So I have been away from scouting for around 3 years so I imagine there have need some things that have changed since I was in. So at cub meeting they are teaching the cubs to memorize the scout oath and law and all things to dho with scouts. Is that a new thing? Because I can tell the cubs are having quite a hard time with it.

First of all, welcome to the forum!

Yes, that is a new thing.  I am not sure how long it has been in effect since my Cub-leader days are long past (I made Life in 1974 and my only son made Eagle in 2009  ), but it has been less than three years.  I am not surprised that the Cubs are having a difficult time with it, because it's ridiculous to expect them to be able to do it, particularly the younger ones.  But that is the Word from National.

16 minutes ago, EagleForever said:

And at scout meeting the Weblos are told to attend, and they are telling both the Weblos and Scouts that they will have to work super hard if they want to make Eagle, and that it will take them all the way until they are 18 to get it. Making Eagle is definitely a difficult journey, and there were times I wanted to give up, but I made Eagle at the age of 15. Not once have I ever heard leaders tell scouts that they have to wait until they are 18. Does this sound wrong to anyone else or has scouts really changed this much since i was in?

It sounds very wrong.  First of all, as you know, the deadline is the 18th birthday, so if they literally "wait until they are 18" they won't make it at all.  Even "waiting" until you are 17 is a good recipe for not making it at all, because nothing ever takes the amount of time you think it will.  Especially at that age, youth tend to procrastinate, although it looks like you did not, since you made it at 15.  My son made Life at 14, and if he had moved at a reasonable pace, he would have made Eagle before his 17th birthday.  He did not move at a reasonable pace.  He ended up making Eagle 2 days (and zero business days) before his 18th birthday, and even then he made it because several people went out of their way for him.  That is what happens when you "wait."  It's a very bad thing to tell the kids.

1 hour ago, Ranman328 said:

She is giving this poor kid behind the counter who couldn't be more than 18 or 19 years old a hard time about how it is so unfair that there has to be a female leader at all events if there are any girls in the Pack.  

It boggles my mind that anyone who has a daughter (I have two, both of whom are adults and moms themselves) would object to that requirement.  Peoples’ energies should be put into finding more female leaders, not complaining about it.

On 2/24/2018 at 3:04 PM, ItsBrian said:

Took the new YPT this morning (assuming I needed the most updated one for camp staff).

Its completely different from the old YPT in my opinion.

I feel like the new one is like a a documentary/lesson.

It focused A LOT on sexual abuse. I feel like they should’ve focused more on two deep, digital, buddy system, etc. instead of a 30 second voice over for each.

Well, sexual abuse and two-deep, digital etc are related; one is the problem and the others are ways to reduce the occurrence of the problem.

But generally I agree with you.  There is too much time spent telling us what the problems are and why they are a problem, and too little time discussing the "solutions," i.e. the barriers to abuse (2-deep, no 1-on-1 etc.)  It may be that I am a little jaded about this, because I have either taken or "facilitated" (back when it was an in-person-only course) the various versions of YPT going back to 1999, probably 25 times or so.  For awhile the district had me on their regular "teaching" rotation.  So I kind of feel like I don't really need to sit through yet another recitation of how much child abuse there is and why it's bad.  I know already.

1 hour ago, shortridge said:

It’s more what you’d call “guidelines” than an actual rule.

https://scoutingwire.org/marketing-and-membership-hub/social-media/social-media-guidelines/

Yes, Captain Jack Sparrow, but what are the consequences of not following the "guideline"?  (That is an actual question, I do not know the answer in this context.)  If the consequences of not following a "guideline" are the same as the consequences of not following a "rule", then it really doesn't matter what they call it.

2 hours ago, shortridge said:

Keep online conversations with everyone in public places, not in email.”

If this is really the rule, then I think National has sailed right off the deep end.  You know, @RichardB, adults can harass and verbally abuse other adults, and it unfortunately happens in workplaces all the time, and it can sometimes lead to liability for the employer.  In BSA National Headquarters, and in councils, are employees allowed to email each other?  (That's a rhetorical question, I'm sure they are.)  If so, how do you know that some nefarious activity is not taking place by email.  By the logic of not permitting troop communications by email, then people at BSA National should not be emailing each other.  Ridiculous, you say?  I agree!

We all want the Scouts to be safe.  But whether we want to admit it or not, we do not do "everything" we can do to keep the Scouts safe, because "everything" would mean there are no activities or communications at all, and therefore no program.  There has to be a balance.  Nobody would die in auto accidents if there were no cars and no driving, but yet we drive cars and try to make the drivers and the cars as safe as they can reasonably be.  

On 10/5/2018 at 11:12 PM, NealOnWheels said:

I wonder how long it will be before the owners and hosts of this website are sued for defamation of character.

If you mean the news site that printed this article, it seems to me that they were very careful to keep quoting the lawsuit rather than making the statements "in their own voice."  The lawsuit contends, the lawsuit alleges, according to the lawsuit, etc. etc.  As long as the lawuit does say those things, the statements in the article are not false, regardless of whether the statements in the lawsuit itself are false.  

2 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

If you write a blog post online accusing me by name of a crime I didn't commit, couldn't I sue you? Not sure if it's "defamation" or if it's a different word. 

You could, and yes, it’s defamation.  But NealOnWheels was not talking about the writer of a post.

2 hours ago, NealOnWheels said:

I wonder how long it will be before the owners and hosts of this website are sued for defamation of character.

Would you care to explain that?

49 minutes ago, MattR said:

A lot of people don't realize this but if you read the original Hebrew, when Moses received the tablets that God had written the commandments on, there were 11. After Moses broke and then rewrote the commandments he dropped one. First of all, this illustrates that man wrote the 10 commandments and not God. Also, the one that was dropped was "Thou shalt not argue about religion, it just pisseth me off when you get so angry about what should be about love."

But seriously folks, when Judge Roy Moore put up his (unconstitutional) public monument of the Ten Commandments, the monument had 11 commandments.  See https://tinyurl.com/y9oakh38  It all depends on how you parse the first few.  And if I have this correct, Orthodox Jews find 613 (I think) commandments in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not just 10 or 11.  A couple hundred of them only apply when there is a main Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which there hasn't been for awhile, but there are people who do follow all ~ 400 that remain.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

Ah, NJ comes to mind. I forgot. Some theist define their morality along with atheist. 

Actually, my general view of morality is basically the same as the Reform Jewish movement (of which I am technically a part), Episcopalians, Unitarians and others.

4 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

We talk often about lawsuits being filed, or the fear there of.  Can anyone list any significant successful lawsuits against BSA , or a troop, or a CO for its membership or advancement policies that actually resulted in a court ordering a change in either advancement or membership.

I play an attorney in my day job, and I can think of almost no grounds for bringing a successful suit that would ever make anyone an eagle scout or force any individual unit to do anything about admitting a particular individual as a member.

This is mostly a boogeyman fear, and as scouters we should be good enough citizens to recognize it as such.

As far as I know, every lawsuit againt the BSA regarding membership policies has either been won by the BSA or settled in such a way that the membership policy was not changed until the BSA later decided to change - with one exception. That exception is the complaint brought in the New Jersey Division of Civil Right on behalf of the 8-year-old trans boy who was denied membership in the Cub Scouts because his birth certificate says he is a girl.  The BSA basically caved... they changed the policy and I believe they even paid some money to the kid's family.  The  BSA did not have to cave, they could have taken it up through the NJ appellate courts and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they would have had the Dale case on their side, and may have won.  I think they changed the policy because they were tired of negative publicity and, in retrospect, they knew that Cub Scouts would soon be opened to girls anyway.

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Assuming no disabilities,  I would hope with an extension, we could expect more work (okay, I'll say it - additional requirements) from a 19-20yr old adult? Eagle candidate.  

Pioneering MB?  Serve as an adult leader?

Well, I think there is an "additional requirement" of sorts, in that the Scouts who do this will have 24 months (or less) to go from no-rank to Eagle, of which more than 16 months are time requirements, rather than having 7 years.  There will be no time for pauses and probably very little or no time for sports, robotics, school plays or any other elective activity.  These Scouts will basically be eating, sleeping, going to school (including college), doing homework (hopefully) and doing Scout advancement. 

15 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

I read a news article that said that she will be about 4-5 months shy of 18 in February.

10 minutes ago, Chris1 said:

In this article.    https://patch.com/new-york/southampton/long-island-girl-continues-quest-join-boy-scouts-national-organization-women.  She is said to be 15 on May 4, 2017 that would make her still 17 on May 4,2019 therefore still 17 on February 1,2019. 

Thanks for that. I think that’s a good thing.

27 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Looks like Sydney Ireland will be able to get Eagle after all.

I was wondering about that too. Do we know that she will still be 17 as of Feb. 1?

1 minute ago, Sentinel947 said:

They'll need to be counted as adults for YPT if they are "participants" after 18 in my understanding of YPT. But this is only going to be a situation that will last until 2021. At that point there won't be any Scouts who qualify and are working their requirements under this extension. 

You’re probably right.  They would be treated like 18-20 year olds in Venturing are treated now:  as youth for participation purposes but as adults for YP purposes.