qwazse

consent of all except the fetus and in a peaceful context except for the fetus. But, thanks for the language. Because isn't the playing of violent video games done with the consent of all and in a peaceful context? If practicing the dispensation of death in actuality is not to be associated with a violent society, then probably practicing it virtually cant be either. I like Stosh's acceptance that we're a brutal lot much better.

CP: a person's sexual orientation is defined by the sexual relationships an adult has with other adults You might have to update a few Wikipedia references, then. And Webster, for that matter. Just like heterosexuality, homosexuality includes, at least on this campus, older participants grooming younger ones. Their ability to draw the line at age 18 is a mere formality. I'll agree that the molestation threat to our youth comes from those who fail to draw the age line. And, the reality is that those folks don't come to us with warning labels! The ban has little to do with immediate threats.

Mike - Your bigotry against happy shooters is duly noted. It's really arrogant of you to think anything else is more important. Trev - For every person I've talked to who throws the exclusions into the mix, dozens more have talked to me about this organization with extreme admiration. Our boys? CP - your defining the "ugly" homosexual acts out of the definition of "gay" is as disingenuous as Beav's claims of diversity. We're about as close to naming the sexual orientation of pedophilles as we are to figuring out how to overcome race and class divides among different scouting units. I'll agree with you on this: if the ban had to do with youth being put at risk because of an adult's sexual preference, then I shouldn't be allowed to advise a co-Ed crew. It is odd. My church youth group is more welcoming to homosexuals and athiests than is the BSA, and it falls squarely into the group that CP rants about. Of course the desire to convert is overt, but as long as they put up with it, they are welcome.

In the 60s, indifference to the life of the unborn was not a public option. Now, from the start of every pregnancy, a woman's right to terminate the life within for any cause is held inviolate. Fortunately indifference to life after the womb hasn't risen to a comparable rate ... Yet.

Thanks. I'll share it with our boys this weekend. If they say anything relevant, I'll bring it up here next week. Just one question about data flow: Why isn't this sort of thing on scouting.org first?

Not advising a course, but from the vantage of complete ignorance ... Still use him. But now you have the advantage of hindsight to point out to boys the importance of self-evaluation. It sometimes takes years for a strong leader to face his/her own faults. The longer he/she waits, the harder it gets ... the worse the consequences for everyone around. Still, brutal honesty is the only way to open the door to redemption.

Rich, The thing is, councils take national's attempt to simplify things (like the tour plan instead of a goofy array of tour permits) and bludgeon volunteers with them (like attempting to require them for every gathering outside your regular place of business). The medical form is now a small novel. On the bright side, if one of our languages is ever lost to history, archaeologists will now be able to use it as a Rosetta stone. And everyone waves that insurance bogey man! Simple program changes can be stifling. An SM gets wind of boys planning to camp at Farmer Ben's, they already have someone who will take them in their land speeder and pick hem up after breakfast the next day. Rather than supporting them, he -- having never read an original handbook or looked on Kudu's site --requires them to have an adult present. No adult is available to go. Trip gets cancelled. The empire's hold on the galaxy strengthens. Okay, it's a stinky Star Wars analogy, but you get the picture.

Is every molester of young boys a perpetrator of having gay sex with young boys? Absolutely yes. Unless the perp is female. Which, I guess kinda makes Trev's point.

Pardon me if while growing up reading the "Scouts in Action" section of Boys Life about medal of honor recipients who while on an overnight with their patrol, happened to complete a rescue of some hapless stranger that I took it to mean that "patrols, well prepared, save lives." Heck, I remember one time while hiking with my buddies (back in the day when you just got together and did those sorts of things) that we crossed a pipeline and smelled gas. We hustled home and reported it. There's no telling if it amounted to a big problem or not. But that's what I think patrols should be doing: covering their community and taking a little responsibility for it. That's why I will still support any group of youth who come to me with a plan to go hiking and camping on their own, and help them have a solid plan. Put too many layers of bureaucracy in their way, and you have groups of guys who stay home and play video games.

I'm wary that letting the scouts elect/select and self-regulate might not result in the change we need. That could be your problem. You think that, by allocating boys on your own, the odds are in your favor of getting the intended results. Whatever does or does not happen will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Something to think about.

You are paying the cost of being "first" to break in this HA base, there will be bumps in the road. When Jambo moved around every time, I bet there were similar challenges. I was at the first Jambo at AP Hill. Not everything ran smoothly (as I learned later), but I had a great time. So, do think of things from a youth's perspective. Maybe your son does need to know exactly what he will be eating six months from now, but maybe he'll have fun regardless. I agree that this is overhyped. At it's core Jambo is about gathering scouts. All the other stuff is just Disneyland.

Our scouts do share. (Sometimes they have to wait until they get near a cell tower.) It does do something for esprit-de-corps. It hasn't helped recruiting.

The removal of the patrol overnight exemption was just after your SM HB. We discussed it here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=307375&p=1 OGE, sure, I'm using a little hyperbole. But, I sincerely believe our citizens are better served by properly trained patrols of scouts out in the field. Having to coordinate a rendezvous with adults for their overnight unnecessarily limits the range of a patrol.

We changed to this configuration his year. It was getting ridiculous at rechartering time to chase down both the COR and EO for signatures on three separate charters thet never seemed to get completed at the same time. Both persons had the same position in the CO ("elders on session" in a presbyterian church), so functionally they had the same responsibility/authority and just divided it up because it sounded like BSA required it to be at way. So in practice, one would be our go-between with the church, and the other would sign paperwork once a year.

Via two means: 1) Biannual YPT training. 2) Tour plans that cannot be completed by youth members, unless two adults are attending. In our neck of the woods, the commissioner staff has very little influence in the matter. If you have a dozen electronically trained adults whose only responsibility is the unit, who aren't hashing things out at roundtable, in a district with few UCs, well then edicts direct from national are all there is. Now, the one positive of this is that if patrols do plan their outings independently, more adults will be called upon to support them. And, more involved adults is a good thing. But, very few adults are trained to camp at some distance from the boys. So, from a boy's perspective, the only "real" scouting happens outside the BSA when they call up their buddies for a weekend in the woods on their own.

Acco, Specifically, patrols are no longer to be on overnight activities without adult supervision. A few of us find that patently absurd, as once a patrol reaches a certain level of maturity, overnight independent camping is to be expected. Boys are naturally camping independently at this age. The point of First Class is to teach them the basic skills and citizenship to do that sucessfully.

I don't know. I trust the boys to be excellent on their own, but all it would take is a single instance of something bad happening and in today's world of information and litigation a boy could be face effects of a mistake he made, which may not have happened under supervision, for the rest of his life. How about the three lost souls on the Ozark trail last weekend? Would they not have benefitted from crossing paths with a patrol of boys prepared to treat for hypothermia, build shelter, signal for rescue, and coordinate safe extraction? BSA should be sued for abandoning real patrols and putting our fellow citizens at risk!

Sq21, I've used the you-only-got-one-shot-so-take-it argument for cubs through venturers, so I'm with you there. It works for most young boys (9 out of 11 in FTB's case). But then there's those other youth who need a get-the-most-out-of-what-we've-had-to-offer argument. And that works on maybe 1 in 10. It's the boy who it dawns on him that you would actually like if he "helped" you by completing his requirements. Unfortunately, it's a crap-shoot if the boys who don't respond to the first argument would be the ones who would respond to the second!

Barry, I've seen the opposite. Only about 1 in 5 of the boys who came into the crew from outside of scouting (or even outside our troop) got anywhere near as involved as the boys from our troop. Not sayin' it's a bad idea. Just saying that just because the shirts may be a little greener doesn't mean the grass is. Son #2 finally got a buddy to come to a troop campout, they were building a foot bridge in muck and mire for a service project. The boy loved it. Came back wanting to join. That was six months ago. Still hasn't completed the app. I offered that he could join the crew. He thinks it's a great idea. Still waiting for that app. In general, I think if you can give a youth that age an appropriate task and lots of recognition for completing it, his chances of coming back increase. Regarding advancement, tell the boy if he wants to, he can, but what you would really like is that he pick up skills. Challenge him to read the first half of the handbook, and see how much of it he already knows, ask him to have a younger PL test him as a way of "secretly" helping that PL with his skills. Honestly? I think the biggest factor is if your boys are friendly. The older boys will quickly feel like adopted big brothers in that environment.

The AOL is not what's important here. What is important: does he know age-appropriate 1st aid? Has he demonstrated those skills? Make it clear to dad that that is what really matters, and say that if the boy needs a couple of months more in the pack to be sure, that's okay. If on the other hand, the boy's old enough and wants to cross-over without AoL and work on 1st aid skills in the troop, that's okay too. If the boy wants to quit scouts and learn 1st aid at the local pool (or wherever), that's also okay. Bottom line: one more boy well prepared. That's what we're after.

Seen it done. For about the same reasons as you describe. Not judging the UC. It could be that you're too proud to listen to his/her advice. Maybe he/she's being fed a line of bull by the mom. Maybe, thanks to her, you're reading his overtures as insults. Maybe it's just an oil and water thing. No way to tell from this side of the interweb. Doesn't matter. You'll never know unless you swap a different person into the role. The down side: you might get a UC who is not invested in your unit at all. He/she might take the fact that you asked for a trade as an indication to keep a more respectful distance from your troop than you intended. You might have to be a little extra-welcoming for the new UC to come around at all.

Ditto all of the above. Start yesterday if: ... you have a charter organization that will host a unit, ... you have three key adults who will take on roles as CO rep, SM, and CC, ... you have 5 or more boys who want to start something new and parents who will support them. By "parents who will support", I mean parents who aren't expecting an Eagle mill, who understand their boys may have to visit the next town to earn a merit badge, who aren't upset if you don't have a massive trailer with a pretty paint job, who will offer their pickup to haul gear when needed -- gas on their dime (even if the boys budget for it), who might be missing a few pots and pans on camping weekends, who are happy just to see their boys sticking together and having fun. And then, will be happy as the "frills" are accumulated if the boys succeed in recruiting a lot of their buddies. If those are in place, tell your DE that your boys are meeting weekly now, and ask him/her to expedite the paperwork. Go to your roundtable and ask scouters if they have a boy who is up for the challenge of starting a new troop. While you meet and pick up some skills, let the boys know how things are progressing with HQ. (Seriously, my SM always showed us the rechartering packet before it was turned in and the charter after we got it. I think it was a tradition from when he started the troop.)

Nike's afraid we might send former scouts studying there to the doorstep!

The issue isn't really about co-ed so much as it is about seemingly limited resources. You build this program that suits a large segment of a target population (this applies more to cubs than older youth), it's a huge draw. Judging by smiles on faces, participants asking to return next year, etc ... it's a tremendous success. So much so that demand rises from outside your target population. You're really not asking yourself "Are they allowed?", "Will the kids mix okay?", "Do the adults share similar values?". Chances are you've answered those questions (or in the case of the OP, someone's answered them for you. The real question is: "How can we possibly have room for more?" or "Is my originally-targeted group gonna get crowded out?" This happens a lot in the crew-troop-partnership scenario. We have to be careful about how it trickles down to the youth. Because both of those questions, no matter how respectfully adults try to word them, seem to get translated by the teenage brain as "I don't fit in." or "Bringing my buddies on [starting a new adventure, doing x] will just cause trouble." Just something for y'all to think about as you have these kinds of conversations.

We see so much of the gear that scouts purchase handed down through the troop, that I don't fret over the individual SA's. I continue to see them as money over which the boys are stewards to help the troop and scouting at large. Our troop benefits if boys recharter with us. Our troop benefits if a boy comes to summer camp. It benefits if each boy is geared up against hypothermia. Our council contingent benefits if one of our boys can make it to jambo. Now, SM_Travis' troop is hurting because it wasn't made clear to the boys (and their families, of course) that his troop would benefit from some of the funds raised being under the stewardship of the committee. (BTW, our SM just bought some plastic dinner plates for the troop mess kits -- with floral patterns that the boys just love!) Hopefully, they'll be forgiving enough to make up for a few years of poor management. Really, this is nothing that can't be made right after a couple rounds of fundraising with a steeper allocation to the general fund. After that the boys will rib the adults complaining that "I had to buy a cheaper compass because y'all budgeted goofy!" "I'm hitch-hiking to Philmont" "Y'all let ___ walk of with my Seabase down-payment." etc ...