Jump to content

ParkMan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2293

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ParkMan

  1. ParkMan
    It's often a challenge to analyze specific cases because it's often very difficult to understand why something happened without knowing all the details and talking to the parties involved. On the surface, this doesn't make sense. National deals with these kinds of things all the time - it is difficult to believe that they would expend the effort to revoke someone's membership because they simply transported a Scout to an event. It suggests to me that there are more details here that are important, but we just can't see. Stuff like: perhaps this was the tenth time this happene
  2. ParkMan
    Then call it something different - ambassadors or the like. If the national professionals have this much authority, we much have a remarkably weak board.
  3. ParkMan
    It's really not. A pack's or troop's program is what they make of it. You want more outdoor and less crafts, you need to be part of a pack or troop that focuses on it. If that doesn't work, then I would encourage you change it.
  4. ParkMan
    The co-ed we cannot address. In the short term, you can simply elect to have an all girl or all boy troop. Despite how people are interpreting the marketing, the Scout level (11-17 year olds) is not turning into a family camping club. Your troop can and should make clear the impact of siblings and parents. The purpose of a Scout troop is to do Scouting - not have kids running wild.
  5. ParkMan
    I'm all for bringing Scouting to youth that need it. However, It just seems that there are so many youth who could benefit from Scouting with less effort than Scoutreach takes. I'd rather see the BSA focus on improving program delivery for their core audience before trying that harder play of branching out to other groups.
  6. ParkMan
    Just to confirm I read this right. You're observation is that: A leader had his membership in the BSA revoked by national because he drove his own son and another scout to an event. Do I read that correctly?
  7. ParkMan
    Back in college the local marine recruiter spotted me and a couple of buddies on day. Got to admit- the challenge it represented was really exciting. There's a couple of paths to getting youth excited in what we do. Whether it's ambassadors or something more rugged, I think both have merits. It think it both cases, the paint a compelling vision of why Scouting is great. One is more about rugged individualism, one is about highlighting people who are already role models to youth. Me, I'd go the ambassador route - but this wouldn't disappoint me.
  8. ParkMan
    I did read today that Chris Evans said he modeled the Captain America character on a childhood friend who is an Eagle Scout.
  9. ParkMan
    That's my reaction when I see some of the more obscure names. No offense, but I've never heard of Paul Sereno, Cliff Jacobson, and the others. My thinking is that for an ambassador, you need someone who will have enough name recognition to change the dynamics of averages person's impression of Scouting. I think it makes sense for it to be more than one person. Recruiting 10--20 different people and having a group sounds like a good idea. I like Chris Pratt. In fact, I think it would be cool for the BSA to line up as many Avengers as possible. Ultimately, what I think the BSA n
  10. ParkMan
    I'd welcome some more Bear Grylls type of people to be ambassadors of the BSA. Having some people who can enhance the image of the BSA would be outstanding. I don't think you'd want them to replace the current executive structure though. I don't think their value is in budget meetings and the other kinds of things a CEO needs to do. Let those with executive experience do that. Let the Bear Grylls and Mike Rowes of the world focus on message and influencing the program.
  11. ParkMan
    I've seen a removal occur once. My experience is that it was very clear what the issue was and why. Its an action of the council and national. I'd think that if you are directly involved here as a party, the council would be open with you. In our case, the membership status was irelevant.
  12. ParkMan
    Welcome to the forum @Terasec
  13. ParkMan
    I would support that 100%
  14. ParkMan
    I concur - I don't see the point. Feels a lot like a hollow attempt to pander to the more devout members of the BSA.
  15. ParkMan
    Uncle. Ya'll do what you want here. I just don't think the answer to G2SS rules you don't like is to pretend you're not acting as a Scouting group while you break them. But, if that what you want to do and argue it's OK - go for it.
  16. ParkMan
    Being the internet, we like to take a point to it's extremes and then argue it's fallacy. I was tempted to insert a meme her but don't want to insult your basic point. This was started because a statement was made that if the BSA prohibits patrol campout the course of action was to: I hear this point from time to time. We don't like the rules, so we'll do it anyways and just say it's not Scouting. The point is that any lawyer worth his salt can poke through that in a second. Now, I'm sure your lawyer will argue it's not a Scouting function. I'm sure the BSA's lawyer and the C
  17. ParkMan
    Thanks - yes, that's the one. The way they were wearing them made me wonder if it was an idea they were trying out. Thank you!
  18. ParkMan
    There are of course practical limits. Counterexample: 1) adults in a troop decide that they don't like the BSA rules on adult supervision. They say "we'll call it a friend camping trip" and send the boys without supervision. Something happens and a boy gets hurt. Adults, CO, and BSA gets sued. 2) adults in a troop don't like the rules on swim tests. They decide to hold a families camping trip. A boy drowns. Adults, CO, and BSA gets sued. 3) Scoutmaster invites scouts over to his house to earn extra money raking leaves. Says it's ok because it's not a Scout function.
  19. ParkMan
    FWIW - I remember a training somewhere along the way. It was very clearly said that when a group of scouts gets together, whether its an official meeting or not, is still a Scouting function. It was designed to prevent 1) people circumventing the G2SS and 2) YPT violations. I just don't recall the source now. Perhaps someone else does.
  20. ParkMan
    Perhaps - but I think it's secondary to dramatic license. Movies 4-6 were about establishing a Luke as a hero who discovers his greatness by discovering his own abilities. Moves 1-3 had to show more Jedi's. That was the wowness factor. If Luke was great, 100 Luke's would be amazing. It was the pay off of sorts for going to the movies. Of course, by the end of the 3rd movie, we had to be back down to the primary force actors - Emporer, Vader, Yoda, Obi-Wan, and Luke. Movies 7-9 needed some Jedi drama. We've seen Luke find his powers under guidance from Yoda & Obi-Wan. So
  21. ParkMan
    I think people get my point though. Sure the BSA has an oath and law. They are pretty generic statements. They define a code of conduct by which we expect scouts to live. The BSA gets itself dragged into these definitions of morality. But it should not and should make clear that it does not want to be. I'm a Catholic from New England that married a Protestant. We have a different set of morals from LDS members in the west. We have a different set of morals from Baptists in the South. 99% of the time we all agree. But, 1% we do not. Why should scouting get itself dragged
  22. ParkMan
    But if the BSA is out of the morality definition business it's not. It would be BSA saying it's your job to figure it out. As I tell my kids sometime - "not my job"
  23. ParkMan
    Fair enough. I'd expand just beyond morality. I think there are ways you could discuss it. Knowing that it's a sensitive topic you ask the scout to discuss the issues he believes are involved here. Then ask the scout to articulate his views on the topic. Ultimately I think it matters most that the scout understand the issues involved here. Ultimately I think it helps the BSA more to be known as the group that encourages character development as determined locally than to be known as the group that advocates a particular set of moral beliefs.
  24. ParkMan
    Understood. This is why I'm coming to the realization that the BSA needs to be out of the business of determining what morally straight means. @NJCubScouter and @blw2 - both your points are well taken. I see what you're saying. I don't think it does the BSA any good to become part of the narrative about what morally straight means or what defines character. I think the CSE needs to stand up and say that it is up to each CO to define morality for themselves.
  25. ParkMan
    I can't believe I'm making this point, but here goes.... The challenge is that we're entering a realm of discussion where the views themselves can be considered inherently offensive. "Some families are superior to others", "being gay is morally wrong". While I agree that we want respectful dialog, the very dialog itself is offensive to some. I am not surprised to see the pushback. For example, I have a gay sister in law. I could never imagine having a discussion about whether being gay was morally wrong. I have divorced friends - I could not imagine having a discussion about whe
×
×
  • Create New...