Rick_in_CA

So it looks like the flag is going away for South Carolina. The house has voted to remove it. I personally feel its about time. When that flag is displayed, it's all about context. The context for the flag flown above the South Carolina State house is all about racism. When a museum displays the Confederate Battle Flag it can be appropriate. But when a state government displays it to intimidate black people, that isn't. And pretending that it's about "heritage" doesn't change that. Germany has wrestled with this when it comes with displaying Nazi symbols. I remember going to an aviation museum and seeing WW2 German aircraft without the proper Nazi insignia. Instead there was a placard explaining that the original symbols were illegal in Germany.

So very sad. I feel for the family, especially the son. I can't imagine what it was like to watch his father die in front of him, especially at that age. I agree with Packsaddle, hopefully the good memories will outweigh that one. My prayers are with the family.

You are correct, I wasn't being very clear. True, there are multiple ways the BSA could go, and a liberal Wiccan only group wouldn't be pluralistic either. But the current state of affairs is pretty much one where, at least in the membership rules, its a conservative Christians group that allows others to join as long as they follow the conservative Christan rules. Otherwise why would an Episcopal church that charters a boy scout troop be told that the man they have chosen as their minister is unfit to be a registered leader for their troop because he is openly gay? Because their religious belief that being gay is morally neutral is trumped by a bunch of conservative Christian COs that believe otherwise. Not very nonsectarian is it? That is the point I was (badly) trying to make.

I'm confused, how is it a flawed choice? The BSA is either "totally non-sectarian" or isn't. Right now it isn't as it's giving the finger to more accepting faiths (that man might be your minister, but he is unfit to be a leader in the unit you charter).

It will be interesting. I've been told that my local council has asked National many times in the last couple of decades if they can be exempt from the requirement to discriminate. National has always said no. Maybe they will get a yes this time? Or maybe they won't bother asking? I think the writing is on the wall. The BSA needs to decide, is it a pluralistic American organization? Or a conservative Christians only group (don't we have Trail Life for that now?)?

This is fun: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/je7nm9/the-kid-stays-in-the-enclosures Maybe there is some hope.

True, there are very few WW2 veterans left. And those that are left, are most are pretty old and not up to talking to groups. But even well written books can give the reader a valuable perspective on the events, or well done documentary films or TV series. The problem is that kids today aren't even asked to read those books, or see those films. Even when I was a child in school, WW2 was given short shrift in school. Basically we were lucky if the history classes got up to the civil war. The passing of the WW2 generation is one of the things that pains me for the current generation growing up today. I can think of the encounters I had with veterans that had a big impact on me*. *One of the ones that sticks in my mind was at a history convention called Celebrate History here in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was in 1998 (or 1999?). This was a convention with lots of history displays and presentations, with lots of emphases on WW2. I attended with a bunch of friends that were WW2 buffs like me. One of the highlights was a talk by Erich Topp, the German U-boat ace that torpedoed the USS Ruben James. The Ruben James was the first US warship sunk in WW2. It was sunk October 31, 1941, over a month before the Pearl Harbor attack. The official story (even the linked wikipedia article reflects this), by both sides is that the ship was torpedoed by accident. According to Erich Topp, he hit what he was aiming at. He fired at the Ruben James because it was in the middle of a depth charge run on his sub. The reason the official story is that of an accident, was that neither side wanted to officially bring the US into the war at that point. It is stuff like this that you can't get from a book, because the books usually reflect the official line. Another memory from that convention: I was wandering around the exhibit hall, and came across a small crowd listening to three vets talk. One of the vets was finishing up a story (which I really wish I had been on time to hear) and turned to vet #2 and asked something like "what about you?" It was clear that the vets were really talking to each other, and allowing us to listen in. So vet #2 responded simply with "Taffy 3" (at the time I had never heard of the Battle off Samar, so I had no idea what "Taffy 3" meant). At that point vet #3 said "My brother was at Taffy 3. He went down with the Sammy B". Vet #2 began to cry. He said "your brother is one of the reasons I'm alive". He then began to tell his story. He was a member of the gun crew for the 5" gun on one of the escort carriers (I think it was the USS White Plains, but it has been years and I might be remembering wrong). He describe seeing the cream of the Japanese battle fleet come over the horizon and thinking "this is it, we are going to be sunk in minutes". He described the towering splashes from the battleship guns as the ships tried to dodge, and the destroyers desperately laying a smoke screen. Then he choked up again as describing watching the destroyers turn away (including the Samuel B. Roberts, also known as the Sammy B.) and charging the Japanese battle line. I can still hear him say "We all knew they were going to get the holy living hell kicked out of them and they weren't coming back. But we thought, just maybe, they will buy us enough time so we can get go home". By the time he finished his story none of the vets (or any of us listeners) had dry eyes. Vet #3 started to talk about his brother, and I left because I was (very) late meeting up with a friend. It moments like this I hope our scouts can have some day. It's what can make war something other than a movie or video game for these kids (and adults). Something that as citizens, it is important to understand.

Because most of history is NOT ON THE TEST. So why waste time on it? Today is June 6th. 71 years ago the largest naval armada the world has ever seen, launched the largest amphibious operation in world history to begin the liberation of Europe from the Nazi yoke. How many of our young here in the states have any idea what any of it means? For far too many of our young, WW2 is something that happened in a movie. They have no idea of the whats and whys. Yet if you want to understand many parts of our modern world (The United Nations, UN Security Council, IMF, World Bank, NATO, the list goes on...) you must understand at least some basics about WW2. But it's not on the test, so...

Yeah. Especially broadcast "journalism". They went from "informing the public as part of our license mandated public service" too "our first priority is to sell advertising" (wasn't it Regan that removed the public service requirement for broadcasters? Or was it a later administration?).

One thing you need to be careful of in situations like this, is how accurate is the quote? You might be missing context or nuance that might change your perception of the incident. Before acting on things, you need to talk to the woman and get her version of what happened. It's not that the ASM is lying, it's that he could be shading things either intentionally or unintentionally (memory can be a funny thing). Before you burn the bridge you are standing on, try to make sure you are standing on the right side.

I haven't had a women give me a dirty look or say anything to me about holding a door for them since college, but I did have a few bark at me then. But that brings back a memory. Back in college I remember seeing a young women criticize a young man for holding a door for her. And I remembered that I had held the door for her the previous day without incident. So I asked her why she criticized him and not me. The answer was interesting, she said (or words to this effect): "Because I could tell you were holding the door because you were being polite. He was holding the door because he thought I was hot." The young man was a classmate of mine, so I watched him. And she was right, he only held the door for hot young women. I've been raised to hold the door for whoever is behind me, man or women. So maybe there is more too some of the criticism than is obvious? Or maybe not. You might be right about that, but there are some women that can do the job, and there are clearly some men that can't. My parents also taught me those skills. But I don't think there are many women anymore that want those skills to define them as women either. I know what you mean. I used too do a lot of vintage dancing and seeing the ladies all dressed up in their gowns and the men in their tuxes definitely added a lot to the evening. So are dresses inherently repressive to women? I don't think so. Now women's shoes on the other hand... As roles change and "blend", it can be hard sometimes to find one's way. Where once we had clear gender rules, now things are a bit more confused. The "rules" are still in flux, and we don't have an agreed set of new rules. For example, I had a girlfriend once that was rather confused about this. When we would go out and I would pick her up, I would compliment her on how she looked (for several reasons: one she looked great, two she had clearly put some effort into getting dressed and made up, and three I was being polite). The first time I complimented her she complained that I was focusing on her looks. So the next time I didn't say anything and she complained that I hadn't said anything (like I said - confused). It was only later that I figured out what the real problem was. She liked it when I complemented her looks (and did the other traditional things), but the fact that she liked it bothered her. It didn't fit what she thought a modern, independent female was supposed to be like. She couldn't even agree with herself what the "rules" were supposed to be. Another friend is a female engineer, and quite a few years ago was sent to Japan on business with a team of other engineers. After the day's meeting and such were over, her Japanese hosts turned to her and asked her with full seriousness "Are you a female or an engineer tonight"? They were asking her because the social rules that applied to visiting engineers and those that applied to women were incompatible. She had to pick a role, she could not be both (a choice that none of her male colleagues had to make of course). So she said "engineer" and was treated to a night of strip clubs, alcohol and karaoke (and the following night she was able to say "female" and avoid the hangover without offending her hosts - something many of her male colleagues envied her for). Japanese society had not yet adapted to the idea that women could be engineers, there were no "rules" to fit the situation. The result was confusion. As time goes on, new rules are forming. It's just that the rules were never as hard and fast as many would believe, and they probably won't be in the future either.

You have got to be kidding me? So when women get sexually assaulted it's their fault for being there??? If women get overpowered it's their fault for not being strong enough??? The men are just being men??? Am I the only one that finds this attitude morally bankrupt? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you are saying here?

Suspicious cars and potential abductions? The problem with reports like this is it's hard to judge if they are legitimate or not. Some will be, while others will just be suburban paranoia. Even when reading the police reports it can be sometimes hard to tell how legitimate the suspicion was (though most of the time I would hope it is clear). I remember reading a news story about a spate of "suspicious" activity around one of our local schools, that was mostly paranoia. Simply being a lone male by itself is not suspicious (and not all white vans are driven by child molesters). A thirty old male approaching a teenage girl and asking her if she wants a ride is. Unfortunately, too many people can't tell the difference, and too often the media doesn't care about the difference as fear sells.

@@Stosh OK, I am very willing to believe that wasn’t what you intended to say. Though when you write stuff like: “Such emasculation started with the extension of estrogen into the whole essence of the program†and “…the epitome of the male experience in scouting went co-ed both with the members as well as the leadership. There is nothing uniquely male about it's make-up anymore.†you can see how readers could get the “blame the women†perception? I agree that there are differences between males and females. But how much is biology and how much is society (a question that people have been exploring for generations)? And I don’t think the differences are as great as some people think they are (or want them to be). Thank goodness the days where young girls were not supposed to run or even raise their arms above their heads because “they are too fragile†or it “wasn’t ladylike†are gone (one of the reasons why GSUSA doesn't have charter orgs, they didn’t want a bunch of men telling them “girls can’t do thatâ€). But there are still cultural biases against women in our society. The trick is figuring out what is actually inherent and what is cultural, and what we should do about it. One of my best friends is a stay at home dad. His wife is a very successful lawyer so it made sense for him to stay home with their two kids (their girl is in girl scouts, and their boy just bridged into boy scouts). It works well for them, and no, he isn’t “emasculatedâ€. What they do have is two wonderful and happy children (that I get to be “uncle†too). I had a coworker that would talk about how his wife would restrict their daughter. She wasn’t allowed to wear anything that wasn’t pink, white or sufficiently “girlyâ€. In junior high she wasn’t allowed to play basketball with her friends because it was too “tomboyishâ€. In high school the only sports she was allowed to play were softball and volleyball and her Mom really wanted her to join the cheerleaders. According to my coworker, what she really wanted to do was join the basketball and soccer teams and hated cheerleading. Her mother was trying hard to make sure her daughter conforms to some sort of stereotype of what it means to be female (and it was causing constant strife between my coworker and his wife). For whatever reasons, she wanted the differences between their daughter and son to be greater than they actually were. And their poor daughter was paying for it. Think about the complaints were see on this forum about girls scouting. How often are we told that the girls want to do what the boys are doing instead? Girls want adventure just as much as boys do. Wow. So allowing women to work means “women don’t need menâ€??? If that were true, then men should have long ago concluded that they don’t need women! Oh wait… Yes the divorce rate is up from the “gold old days†but is that because “monogamy is no longer necessary†or because women are no longer as dependent on their husbands and therefor trapped in horrible marriages? Women used to be effectively “property†and a marriage was the husband buying his wife from her father. It wasn’t that long ago that a marriage instead of being a partnership, the husband was expected to “control†his wife and she was supposed to “obey†him (look at some of the old movies from the 40s and 50s - a husband using physical force on his wife is often treated as acceptable). Some people still believe that is the way it should be. Yes there are some people today that appear to treat marriage as not a big deal and divorce as a minor inconvenience, but those people are the minority. Among my circle of friends and acquaintances at least I don’t know anyone that treats their marriage or any divorce lightly. And what is culturally better? The “trophy wife†or mistress? I don’t think anyone is arguing that things are perfect now days, just that the trends over all are in the right direction. But as you have pointed out, there are clearly areas where things appear to be moving in the wrong direction. Like I said in my first post, I agree with many of your points. I was just disagreeing with the reasons you appear to be attributing the problems too. And the reasons are important because if we don’t understand why things are broken, we will have a much harder time fixing them. And Stosh, thanks for starting a fun and interesting discussion!

@@Stosh, I agree with many of your points, but I strongly disagree with your reasons. The problems don't stem from allowing women a greater role in the BSA (or society at large). Those days were not the "good old days", but the "bad old days". Yes things in society have changed greatly in the years since the BSA was founded. In 1911, women in this country didn't yet have the right to vote, were bared from many professions (and would routinely get fired when they got married), and were effectively required to put up with pats on the butt by customers, or groping by their bosses to keep their jobs. Baden Powell was originally against the creation of Girl Scouts (because if girls can do it, it isn't worth doing?) and insisted they not use the word "Scout" (hence "Girl Guides"). Women attending universities were often barred from particular majors or classes, and when allowed in those classes were often told no matter their work they won't get anything better than a C. I could go on for pages. I consider these changes as "good things", and I hope you would agree? As for I'm not sure what you are saying here? Unless you are claiming that bulling and aggression are good male virtues??? As for male only organizations and feminization, I have no desire to go back to the bad old days where things like the Tailhook scandal would not be a scandal (one thing a lot of people don't understand about Tailhook is the changes in society that caused the scandal was not a change in the attitudes and behaviors of the Naval officers, but that their usual behavior toward women had become no longer acceptable). The military for a long time has put all women into two categories: good women and whores. Both have their uses. But since all good women want to get married, have children and be a stay-at-home mom, any women that doesn't choose that path must be in the other category and can be treated as such. And that attitude was not unique to the military. You can't be nostalgic for the days when "men were men and women were women" without acknowledging the dark sides. Things have changed for very good reasons, and mostly for the better. As for why things have changed within the BSA, I think Horizon has done a good job of articulating the reasons above, so I won't repeat them here.

Great photos! Looks like they are having lots of fun. I love how it doesn't matter what the kids are wearing, but they add the neckerchief and suddenly they look like scouts! And under 14 years of age and using one wheeled carts! The horror! I glad the BSA put a stop that kind of fun dangerous activity!

A Scout is Honest!

@@Cambridgeskip, Your youtube video is blocked with the message "This video contains content from WMG, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." I guess it's the music? So much for fair use.

Kandersteg sounds like lots of fun! I wish I had a chance to go to a place like that when I was a scout. One thing you may or may not be aware of is that at Kandersteg (and a lot of European youth camps), single gender sleeping arraignments are by special request only. So depending on what your booking plans are, keep that in mind.

Actually if you read the article, these are not kids having fun in a park. This is a group that attacked a vehicle full of people by shooting water guns into the face of the driver and throwing water balloons at the passengers. The fact that several of the passengers were off duty cops just makes the take down that much sweeter. I hope these idiots go to jail.

Very cool!

As for the very un-scout like stuff that has shown up on this thread, I understand that we all care deeply about scouting and that this is an emotional topic. We can disagree, and argue with force and passion without resorting to personal attacks. Assume that the people on the other side of the argument a still good people trying to find their way in a difficult area. A Scout is Kind.

You have to understand the conservative view of history here (I’m about to paint with a wide brush, yes this doesn’t apply too all conservatives). The idea that the BSA had local control before the 80s is rejected. In their minds the no-gays policy was clear and dates back to the founding of the BSA. So when you mention it, it gets ignored because “it didn’t happenâ€. They also believe that the no-gays (and no-atheist) policies have been well known by everyone considering being a CO or joining scouts. Hence you get the “why would you join or be a CO of a group that you don’t agree with†stuff. They also reject the idea that many scouters, scouts and charter orgs have been lobbying for years against the discrimination policies. It’s all just outside pressure by people that “don’t care about scoutingâ€. Either that or anyone within the BSA lobbying for the change is doing it for nefarious reasons and “don’t really care about scouting†and therefor don’t count as “real scoutersâ€. They also believe that the BSA basically “belongs†to the religious conservatives. Which is where you get sentiments like “why don’t you go away and form your own organization (this one is ours)?†Of course, many of them believe the same thing about the country, us stupid liberals aren’t “real Americans†and are out to destroy the country we apparently hate. I believe the history is something different. Before the 1980s, we had effective local control. When the right-wing take over happened, and we lost local control (a slow process that didn’t happen overnight), we lost units over it. I know that in my local council we had several Jewish groups that had been longtime COs close their units because they refused to discriminate (and that they have told our council they would love to sponsor units again - as soon as the BSA stops discriminating). Nationally we had several hundred (I’m not sure of the exact number) of UUA churches and groups sponsoring units, and most of those stopped because of the BSA’s new discriminatory policies. There were many others. And yes, if local control is restored, I expect we will loose a few current COs. As for the idea that this was all well known by the COs, how? Homosexuality was not mentioned in the BSA Rules and Bylaws, nor in the Charter Agreement. In fact, this well known “policy†wasn’t mentioned in any official BSA publication that I am aware of, only in press releases or court statements. When it’s in the news, people hear about it, then when it leaves the news, people forget. When this whole membership thing hit the news before the vote, our council got contacted by a bunch of COs who had no idea about the policy (some were in favor of the policy, some were not - but it was news to them). I’m sure plenty of other COs knew about it, but these didn’t. Plus there were a lot of scouters and parents that had no idea about the policy (I had lots of scouters and parents tell me that). When I was a youth I was a cub scout, boy scout and explorer scout, and I had no idea about any membership policy. It wasn’t until years later that I learned about it. I’m Unitarian and I learned about all this stuff when the BSA basically forced out the UUA COs in the late 90s. So why did I return as a scouter years later? Because scouting was great to me when I was a youth, and I wanted to give back. I thought long and hard about the “membership issuesâ€, and I decided that the positives outweighed the negatives. But if the membership had voted to double down on bigotry, I would probably have left. I care a lot about scouting, and the reason I have been writing letters to national and the council urging a change is that I believe that the current policy is incompatible with the Scout Oath and Law. I want the BSA to do a better job of living up to it’s ideals. And I believe that the majority of scouters that agree with me also care deeply about scouting. I don’t know anyone that is pushing for change in order to “destroy scouting†or because we “hate scouting†or “…insert favorite nonsense here…â€. I also believe that by picking sides in these issues the BSA has hurt the brand immensely. The right wanted to changed the BSA from being an American patriotic institution to being a conservative religious one. And look where it has got us - no more special access to government resources, little to no public school support, military COs are all gone, reduced support from private institutions, etc. I’m not surprised that Gates has come out for change, the writing is on the wall. Look at STEM Scouts. They will open every meeting with the Scout Oath and Law, but have no membership restrictions. So being gay or an atheist is apparently not incompatible with the Scout Oath and Law in STEM Scouts? Then how is it incompatible in Boy Scouts?

I also love how the BSA saying no to gays is "standing up for their values", but another private group standing up for their values and choosing to no longer donate money is "blackmail".

I think what he might be refering to here is that many states have anti-discrimination laws that effect employment. And the BSA has long held that employees are also members? I understand that is the issue the camp in New York ran into. The gay Eagle Scout in question was being hired as a paid employee of the camp.