sherminator505

Less than two Scouts or Scouters showing up, unfavorable road advisories, known unsafe conditions. Winds of 30-40 mph probably wouldn't constitute a reason in and of themselves. But then again, we get a lot of wind.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I have seen a SM dismissed for the simplest of reasons - poor performance. Granted, he was likable enough and wrote long-winded newsletters like nobody's business, but...

I have a few questions for the group. Feel free to tackle one or all.

1. When did we as an organization go from promoting a movement to advertising a product? How did this happen?

2. When did we as an organization go from discussing values as being essential to becoming a complete citizen to discussing values in a vacuum, with citizenship taking a back seat? How did this happen?

3. Why was it necessary to rebrand OA as "Scouting 's National Honor Society" when it doesn' t function as such and we seem to lack the will to make it so?

4. When we came out with the stickers that read "America is returning to the values that Scouting never left," what exactly did we mean?

I am looking forward to honest, candid replies...

Fine. I'll spin it off.

So I'm guessing no one wants to take on the larger mindset question, then...

I think you all know where I stand on the policy, so I won't belabor that point. I don't think that the policy, in and of itself, is affecting membership nearly as much as the mindset behind it. Often I see the BSA billed as a "values" organization when we have been previously viewed as a "citizenship" organization.

Now I am in full agreement that the values we teach in Scouting are integral to practicing citizenship, no doubt about it. But the perceived shift in thinking towards a strictly "values" organization has not been without consequences. We hardly mention the word "citizenship" anymore; when I brought that word into another thread, someone actually thought I was talking about one of the merit badges! Also, when we continue to center the discussion on "values" with an increasingly myopic focus, we come to be viewed as "arbiters" of virtue, on par with churches and religious institutions. This is not how Scouting was conceived, nor is it why the BSA received a Congressional Charter in the first place.

I don't believe that a change in the policy will have much of an impact unless it is accompanied by a transition to a more complete focus on citizenship, and I really think that the latter should be addressed with greater urgency.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"Beav & SP"! A spinoff from the "Ed & Merlyn" show?

JoeBob, have you now taken up Kawidaphoenix's mantle?

Let's see... no funky shoulder loops, no extra pockets, no weird horizontal pocket closures... hey, wait a second! Didn't OUR uniforms look like that once upon a time (but in green)?

I confess myself a bit confused. Here Kudu has resurrected this thread by tossing out a quote from Mr. Boyce with neither preface nor explanation. Still it provides an opportunity for further discussion, so I'll bite.

Scouting has experienced some transformations in the last few decades that have not served the movement well. We seem to have transitioned from a "citizenship" focus to a "values" focus, we have gone from "promoting" Scouting to "marketing" it, and we have let a "brotherhood of cheerful service" become an "honor society." Some might argue that I'm simply talking semantics, but I believe that they reflect an overall loss of focus. What might we do to get back to our initial focus?

As an Eagle Scout, I think Michael Moore represents my views more closely than Rick Perry.

I can't buy into the whole FDR analogy unless you are willing to concede that the Tea Party has declared war and tell us who they've declared war against!

More generally, I was referring to too many people on both sides of the aisle who have either forgotten how to be statesmen or never bothered to learn. It's easier for us to toss around words like "teabagger" or "Obamacare" but I expect a little more from our leaders in DC just as I try to extract more from myself.

Shaking one's meaty fist in the air and shouting "I REFUSE TO COMPROMISE!!!" is hardly statesmanship, whether you're talking about a no-tax pledge, preserving government programs as they are, or some other point of view. For that matter, neither is cheering the trashing of America in the world market, but I digress...

Given the current status of Venturing youth with OA, I disagree with the notion of setting up an OA chapter as a crew. Vehemently.

We don't change districts much. Ours are geographically large and sparsely populated. If we're lucky, each district is assigned its own DE to interface between us and the council, but sometimes a DE is required to cover more than one district. In general, it's more stable than some of the situations I see described here.

I don't think that the OP is saying that the SM is against OA or that the CO is against OA, rather that there is only one Scout eligible. That said, I am still wondering about the commentary concerning other Troops. If all of the troops are not having elections or not producing eligible candidates, how is the Chapter functioning? For that matter, how is the District functioning?

One comment has me confused... when you say "the other troops feels the same way in OA," what do you mean?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

One thing that I have observed is that some come to think of Eagle as the be-all, end-all of the Scouting experience. They forget about the point of the exercise (namely to prepare young men for parcipating citizenship) and make it about how many Eagles they can "produce." National's "marketing" of the Eagle "brand" doesn't help.

You could probably get one of the belts with the brass buckle on ebay...

What with the way the official unicorm changes slightly every couple of years these days, how do you spot the "fakes" anymore?

I like the campaign hat. I'm okay with the outback-type hat as a cost-effective alternative. I'm not too keen on the boonie hat as it is a bit too militaristic. I do not like ball caps, garrison caps or berets as they lead to red, flaking ears.

(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Lisabob,

When one is simply not interested in learning or growing, whether it is through hubris or merely a healthy sense of self-satisfaction, the number or quality of available information sources is really immaterial.

My recommendation: get a new uniform iff you find yourself needing to wear one more than you foresee at this time. Don't worry about depatching the old one as it is a good keepsake from your days as a Scout.

Um, SP, I'm not sure how a thread on hazing relates to the topic at hand. Please, enlighten us!