Jump to content

Rick_in_CA

Members
  • Content count

    739
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Rick_in_CA last won the day on June 20 2017

Rick_in_CA had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

355 Excellent

About Rick_in_CA

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    California
  1. Interesting question. An article in Wikipedia says that it cost around $50 million to put on the 2010 jamboree with the military paying $8 million of that. However I can't find a reference for the $50 million number so I don't know where that number comes from and how it breaks down (for example, how much is payed for by the participants fees).
  2. The BSA actually wasn't a party in the lawsuit, but the court ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to file the suit, so there wasn't a ruling on the merits of the case. The case became moot when the BSA decided to build the Summit. The case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld Like most things, there are probably multiple reasons why the BSA made the decision it did, but I read somewhere that one of the reasons was the fear that a future lawsuit would win and reduce even more the support the BSA gets from the government.
  3. I thought one of the drivers for the Summit was that the US Army decided it couldn't "host" (i.e. pay for) the BSA Jamborees anymore. So the BSA needed a place to hold the Jamborees going forward. None of the existing BSA properties are even close too having the capacity to host 50,000 plus scouts at once. I suppose they could have chosen an existing site to upgrade, but how many properties does National actually own? Are any of them large enough? Or would it have made sense for National to drop a huge investment into a council owned property somewhere? I suppose they could have done what the US Army did - base the whole thing around temporary infrastructure that they install and remove for every jambo. But, that would probably be a more expensive choice in the long run? Loosing the "special relationship" with the US Government really cost the BSA a lot.
  4. Didn't the BSA argue that the congressional charter was meaningless during the Dale case? Or one of the related cases at the time? I remember something about since the charter implied that the BSA was a public accommodation, the BSA argued that the charter was a meaningless historical artifact or something like that.
  5. New Requirement Question

    I remember a conversation I had with a minister some years ago about the phrase "duty to God" (it was not in a scouting context). A Duty is a "commitment or obligation to someone or something". This minister explained that he didn't owe any obligation or commitment to God, just one to himself and his fellow man. God gives us a moral direction, but the obligation to follow that moral direction is to ourselves and our fellow man, not to him. Now not every minister or faith would agree with him, but it is one way of looking at things. And how does that relate to the line "To do my duty to God and my country"? Well if you really believe that you do not owe a "duty" to your God, then there isn't anything you need to do to fulfill that duty.
  6. I agree with this. My personal opinion is that this is all part of a process to get rid of the three Gs and get the BSA out of the culture wars. If you look at the pre-Dale BSA, who were the largest group of charter orgs? Public schools and the US military. Both of those are gone because of the fallout around the Dale case. If the BSA can put the three Gs too rest, then they can get back into the public schools and the military. I think National is willing to trade short term losses in order to position itself for long term gains. The problem (in my opinion) is that National knows where it wants to get, but doesn't really know how to get there. Which partly explains why National is handling the switch to coed so poorly.
  7. What do you mean by "men" and "manly"?

    and What I find interesting is that these are some of the very same traits we want for our girls as they grow up to become women (and nothing @@fred johnson or @@Tampa Turtle have posted implies that they would disagree with this). So when many people talk about "turning boys into men" what they really mean is "helping male children grow up to be adults of good character".
  8. Here is an good story about two UK cub scouts that used their first aid training to save their grandmother's life. A good reminder that it's not really about the earning the patch. http://scouts.org.uk/news/2017/10/blog-cubs-save-grandmothers-life/
  9. What a load of garbage. Look, in our pack we had a year where we had only one wolf. So his spent most of his time with the bear den so he wouldn't be lonely, but did the wolf requirements (technically he was in a den of one, with his dad as the wolf den leader, and he did do some of the activities on his own). So, were we not being trustworthy or obedient? Of course not, we were dealing with the issue the best we could. And it worked out, he and the bears had lots of fun. The next year we had three new bears, so he was with them in their own den (again with his father as den leader). I don't think anyone would condemn having the lone wolf attend bear den meetings, but if it's a girl? Suddenly we are morally bankrupt? There are lots of legitimate concerns with going coed, but throwing moral aspersions like this is not helpful, nor scout like.
  10. I'm not sure you are correct about a separate program. The relevant sentence is (emphases is mine): So that could mean a separate program, but I it could also be read that the BSA "will do something" for older girls, to be determined later. I think it's the latter, and this means that National is still deciding (arguing?) about how to handle the older girls and so are kicking the can down the road.
  11. You are correct, but I would call that "buried". In my opinion, the question of membership standards should be clearly spelled out prominently on the website, perhaps in the FAQ. That fact that it isn't, I don't believe is an oversight, but an attempt to avoid the issue. Which doesn't serve anyone well.
  12. Ah, so in the CO application is the non-discrimination statement: Now why isn't this on the STEM Scouts website? Maybe it's that for years, the BSA has said that allowing the membership of non believers is incompatible with the Oath and Law, but suddenly for STEM Scouts it isn't? And if it's fine for STEM Scouts, it brings up the question, why isn't it OK for boy scouts?
  13. That is a question that the BSA appears to be trying to avoid answering. Out unit's COR was at a meeting when the BSA was asking our council to be a STEM Scouts pilot council. He said that the question was asked, and they were told it was under Learning for Life and that it was fully inclusive so public schools could use the program (i.e. the DRP didn't apply). I wonder if that is still true? Does the DRP apply? And why isn't that in the STEM Scouts FAQ?
  14. Just got word....

    You have to understand the truly amazing levels of paranoia in parts of our society. Basically, many people assume that all men are potential threats to children unless proven otherwise. And it's worse with female children. Any man that chooses to work with children is suspect (especially if they don't have children of their own). Boy Scouts is one of the few places where that is still acceptable. Though I have heard stories of parents complaining about scouters that don't have children of their own, and in one case of a unmarried scouter being asked to leave a cub scout pack because of parental fears (he ended up as an assistant scoutmaster in a troop). Outside of the BSA, we have day care facilities that find because of parental fears they can't employ any men. On the rare occasions when men are allowed to volunteer at GSUSA camps, they must wear bright red arm bands showing that they are "permitted", but must also be escorted by an adult female leader whenever they are near any of the scouts (a coworker's experience). The list of examples is much to long to list here. If you add girls to the mix, the level of paranoia will increase. And the worry is that the rules to compensate for the fear will make it that much harder for any adventure to take place.
  15. Smart phones and Teens

    Here is another article about the increase of depression in kids: The Decline of Play and Rise in Children's Mental Disorders Much of what is says applies to scouting. I think it reinforces the importance of real "boy lead" troops and the patrol method. Like this from the article (bold emphases mine): Plus maybe we should do away with all the "school work" merit badges? At least take them off the required lists?
×