NJCubScouter

I didn't like the fact that you have to give your name to take the survey, but when I decided to proceed anyway, I realized that I wasn't actually taking the survey at that time, but merely requesting a survey. I received the link the next day (today) and the survey doesn't ask for your name. So there is at least a possibility that your name isn't connected to your answers. That is an issue for some people but not for others. I suspect that when you give your name, it is checked against BSA records to make sure you are a registered member before they send you the link to the survey, which I guess is reasonable. I found the survey reasonably fair and evenhanded. It WAS possible to oppose any change, by answering "strongly oppose" (or whatever it was) to two different questions - one about the Cub Scout level and the other about the Boy-Scout-age level. The one criticism I would have is that the options for Cub Scouts were all packaged together, so (for example) you couldn't support all-girl packs while opposing coed packs (with single-gender dens). You had to either support both or oppose both. The Boy-Scout-age issue was in a separate question.

This thread is being moved to Issues and Politics.

I don't think they can, but we have some OA experts in here who would know better than I do.

You're even more cynical than I am, which is a difficult task. But I agree (except maybe for the "fast" part.) This is what I have been saying all along. They want more membership and the money that comes with it.

Actually, the entire conversation (about girls in the BSA) has been going on for at least 45 years - long before Sydney Ireland was born. As far as "separate but equal" being a PR disaster, maybe so, but if you listen to the CSE's presentation, we are heading for either "separate but equal" or "separate and unequal" at the Boy Scout age level. I would think "separate and unequal" would be even more of a PR disaster, and it is a disaster that is easily avoidable. By "unequal" I am mainly talking about the two issues that the CSE mentioned as still being up in the air for a new program, namely whether girls will earn Eagle and whether girls will join the OA. Although from a public perception standpoint, the real issue is Eagle, because I doubt that very many people outside the BSA even know what the OA is. So "equal" would mainly mean allowing girls to earn Eagle.

Again with the "progressive outrage"... or "outside agitators"... or "outside pressure"... or whatever. Does anyone really think that, at this moment in our nation's history, the gender composition of the BSA is even on the radar screen of most "progressives"? There are many, many more pressing issues to be concerned about. As for the "girls" issue, there are a few people here and there, outside the BSA, who are talking about it, and there is a girl here and four girls over there who have gotten some publicity for their efforts to join the Boy Scouts. This change is really being driven by National, for their own reasons and not someone else's agenda, and some local Scouters (probably not a majority) who are already creating their own unauthorized coed units (mostly Cub Scouts.)

I agree with your reasons # 1 and 2 and I agree that there is at least a 50 percent chance of # 4 happening as well. If your post was in response, I was just saying what I think National is going to do. I was not giving an opinion on whether it would "work" or not. There seem to be four possibilities here, and I don't want my numbers to get tangled with your numbers, so I am using letters: A. Local option for coed or girls-only Cub packs, local option for coed or girls-only troops. B Local option for coed or girls-only Cub packs, local option girls-only troops, but not coed. C. Local option for coed or girls-only Cub packs, no program for girls between Cubs and Venturing. D. No change at all. I think D is off the table at National. C may also be off the table, and even if it is still being considered, I strongly doubt that will be the choice. I think A is off the table, or at least I am giving the CSE the benefit of the doubt when he says it is. Which leaves B. I understand that you and some others here believe that B will effectively turn into A, either with or without National's approval. But it is also possible that B would not turn into A, or it would turn into A in some places and not in others. So if you don't support coed troops, I think B is still better than A.

Maybe. But I have to tell you, as cynical as I usually am, and skeptical of pronouncements from National, when I watched that video of the CSE explaining what he wants and doesn't want (a program for girl Cub Scouts to cross over to, but not coed troops), it struck me as having a great deal of sincerity. Maybe he is just a good salesman, but I got the sense that he was saying what he really believed. Of course, I am not betting any money on this, so it doesn't cost me anything if I'm wrong. I hope I'm right.

The bottom line here is that the president said he got a call from the "head of the BSA saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them", and the BSA denies it. I believe the BSA, because, first, given the two choices, I believe the BSA, and second, the president's claim makes no sense in light of the CSE's public statement lamenting the "political" nature of the speech.

Sablanck, I am wondering if you drew the same conclusion that I did from the video presentation, that the BSA is NOT considering allowing girls to join Boy Scout troops, and that if any change is made at that age level, it will be a separate girls-only program. That was definitely my impression, but there are some in this forum who still seem to think that units will be "coed" at all age levels. And then there is at least one person who thinks that the "separate unit for girls" at the Boy Scout level is just a ruse and that the all-boy troops and all-girl units will just meet together and it will be effectively "coed". I am just wondering what impression you got.

It really isn't. It's not one term, it's no terms. It sounds like the Scouts huddle together and select (by unknown means) a President-for-Life, who serves either until he is 18 or until there is a coup and a new President-for-Life is chosen. That isn't really correct either. BSA policy, as expressed in the Patrol Leader's Handbook, is: See http://www.scouting.org/filestore/boyscouts/pdf/Troop_Leadership_Positions.pdf So the idea of set eligibility requirements and a "schedule of elections" (which means "terms") is definitely supported by the BSA. They just leave it up to the troop to determine those things.

Actually, the way you have described it in the past, not only are there no "term limits" in your troop, there are no terms, either. They are two different things. A term would be six months or a year or whatever, and term limits would be that you can only serve two, or three, or whatever, of those terms. You cannot have term limits without terms, but you can have terms without term limits (as my troop does.) I suspect that there are many troops without term limits, but relatively few without terms. The way you do it, the boys choose someone and he serves until the boys choose someone else, but there is no set procedure for how they decide when it is time to choose someone else. Right?

I know that APO still exists, and still uses the Scout Oath and Law as their basic principles, although its relationship with the BSA may not be what it once was. One of our Eagle Scouts was a member of APO while in college and told me about some of what they do.

How is "the boys deciding" different from an election? I assume the decision is not made through combat or drawing of straws, so some conscious decision is made by the boys as to who would be the best person for the job. Isn't that an election?

What we do about this is this: When we have an SPL election, before the Scouts actually vote, each candidate speaks to the troop and usually covers the typical stuff, why I want to be SPL, what my plans are, what I would do to improve things. Usually it's only a minute or two. These speeches have been part of the election process for as long as anyone can remember. A couple years ago we made a suggestion to the candidates, which has basically become an "accepted practice" (you can call it a "rule" if you want) that if any candidate has any upcoming sports commitments that might lead to numerous absences, they need to share that with their fellow Scouts so the troop can take that into account when voting. A corollary to this is that if a candidate for SPL has had a poor attendance record, he needs to share with the troop how and why that is going to change, IF it is going to change. This way the electorate is better informed about the candidates and can make their own choice. The other part of the solution, I think, is to make sure the ASPL is taking on that job with full knowledge that he might be "acting SPL" quite a bit.

Stosh, I don't think RS was suggesting anything along the lines you are talking about, and you should not assume that he was. Our Constitution provides a couple of perfectly peaceful ways for someone new to become president before the next election. I don't happen to think either of them are going to happen in this presidency, although the odds are no longer negligible. On the other hand, as I suggest above, that isn't something I necessarily want to see happen. Unlike the President, the Vice President has an actual ideology, and it scares me to death.

Well... but he is the Shenaniganator in Chief. He is the root cause of the shenanigans and the direct perpetrator of many of them. To paraphrase the recently hired and recently fired White House Communications Director, the weirdness starts from the top down. One crisp new U.S. 1-dollar bill says both of them will still be working in the White House and waving goodbye to General Kelly when he walks out the door for the last time. Well, we'll see how long the President's son-in-law (and daughter) report to anyone other than the President. I would put down another dollar bill on this, but I have already reached my limit, see above.

Par for the course. Specifically the par 72 New Course at the Trump National Golf Club, Bedminster, New Jersey.

And if you believe that, would you be interested in buying the Bayonne Bridge?

Interesting. In my neighborhood growing up (60's into the early 70's) there was a YM/YWHA. (Young Men's/Young Women's Hebrew Association.) The building was long ago converted to something else after the vast majority of its clientele moved to more suburban locales. I don't know if the organization itself ceased to exist or just moved with its constituency.

Oh, good, now my fellow moderator is trying to give me a stroke.

Well, we'll see what happens when his "housecleaning" extends to someone(s) who has worked in the White House for more than 11 days (though I am not sure that he ever officially started since was waiting for ethics clearance on the sale of his business) and who so obviously needed to be fired. Like if General Kelly decided that the White House would be better off without Steve Bannon... or Kellyanne Conway... or - and this one would really be the acid test - Jared Kushner. Regardless of whether any of these things actually happen, or something else, I predict that over the next few months, the new chief of staff will find that he does not have the free hand that he needs, and he will either ask for a different job in the administration but outside the White House, or go back to the private sector.

So, in the space of about a week, this guy comes in, causing Sean Spicer to quit, makes comments that cause Reince Preibus to be fired, and the new chief of staff fires HIM. Meanwhile a couple of other guys still have bulls-eyes taped to the back of their suits. This administration is starting to look like the last act of a Shakespearian tragedy: Wall-to-wall dead bodies with like two guys left alive at the end.

Our former SM used to tell Scouts they should not begin the project "process" until they were 3 or 4 MB's away. I was never clear on whether this was "friendly advice" or a "rule." If it was advice, one could debate whether it was good advice. If it was a "rule", it was one he had no authority to make, and that is even more obviously the case here.

Good point. At least he had the discretion not to come out and say what he was talking about there, but there was no reason for him to be in that neighborhood anyway. Hopefully it went over most of the boys' heads.