Gwaihir

"we'd have to kill you" I'm shocked Bryan didn't admonish him for such an unkind statement. Far worse than pointing a water gun at another scout.

We have Mike Rowe. I'll take Mike Rowe over Bear Grylls any day of the week.

Nope, it's not. Maybe it was 20 years ago... it's not any longer. The BSA marketing it as a resume item was and is a colossal misstep. The amount of paper eagles has grown and will continue to grow to the point earning the badge really doesn't mean a thing.

So so dumb. Everything CSE said about the BSA understanding and embracing the differences of the genders and supporting single gender instruction is a bald faced lie. Actions speak louder than words. Spinning off a brand new magazine for girls, have some overlap in articles but also showcase things outside of scouts that interest girls should have been the obvious direction. I wonder how we can get a petition started to voice no confidence in Michael Surbaugh and petition National to elect Mike Rowe as Chief Scout Exec?

The one thing I was thinking of as I was driving, and I wager many an exec at National is fretting over this since the MeToo movement started, but with World Jambo+MeToo+Girls In Scouting+Condoms distributed at Jambo.... if there's one even slightly reasonable allegation of rape that comes out of Jambo (God forbid)... Scouting in America will be over. The national stage, the media pouncing over any thing remotely related to scouts and girls... I don't see the organization recovering. I hope that doesn't happen, but I have to imagine National has concerns that have been elevated since MeToo b

................... it's the only question I've been asking, and one I think is worth discussion.

Seems to me, the volunteers are more hard put to it, since they actually have to lose money to do this, essentially taking a pay cut from their normal careers as opposed to getting money to do it. I'm not getting your argument, or youre presenting it poorly. The difference is that the volunteers are doing this for passion alone, the professionals are doing it for a paycheck... some may have passion, others may not, just like every single other job out there. As for work hours... this is 2018, since the advent of the internet and VPN, there's almost no job out there that doesn't wor

A hobby is done for pleasure, I don't do this for fun, I do this because I find meaning and purpose in it. I do it so the boys (and girls) under my charge get the fun. I don't have contempt for council professionals and enjoy working with them quite a bit, but your condescension for volunteers is palpable.

No, I did not say that. You felt volunteers feel that it's just a hobby. I was addressing this sentiment alone.

no. again, not a difficult concept. I have repeatedly stated that what's being called into question is why we want a game that is opposite our rules in the first place. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept.

"just a hobby" I'd reasonably suspect that for most volunteers... it's a purpose, one with real world ramifications and they pour their souls into the task because it means more to them then just a paycheck, it means personally affecting each and every youth they come across in ways that will profoundly change the trajectory of their lives and enrich their communities and ultimately the world at large. I know very few volunteers that think of being a Scouter akin to playing with lego or collecting stamps.

to each their own, but I see it as the world organizations imposing their will on the host nation and not being humble or respectful of the host's wishes, not very scoutlike. I see it as putting aside principles in favor of short term gains... (kind of like a certain STUMP, with a BUMP, that tends to CLUMP as a LUMP to look like a FRUMP).

that loophole you just drafted is big enough to drive a semi through. Giving your scouts a 20' extension ladder at a troop meeting isn't condoning, endorsing or allowing them to climb over 6' high at scouting events. handing a cub scout a power drill isn't endorsing, condoning or allowing power tools to be used at a cub scout activity. You're a lawyer NJC, so you know it, but there's a spirit to a law and the letter of the law... handing out condoms torches the spirit of the law to the ground.

The difficulty is that the US BSA doesn't have to host an event that goes against it's own laws and policies. If one is to take an Oath and a Law seriously, and to be loyal and trustworthy to the rules and policies set forth, one should abide by those policies even when others tell you it's ok to ignore them. I mean, this is fundamental stuff we teach our scouts every day in the field...

I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, prior to national's decision, my argument to women and those who felt Girl Scouts inadequate and their top award not the same as Eagle, was that the Gold Award was every bit as prestigious and in recent years much more prestigious than Eagle Scout and the Girls scouts should be doing a better job of promoting and advertising how much of an achievement it is to earn the Gold Award. My post was commentary against National and against those families that lamented their girls not being able to earn Eagle and having to be relegated to the "lesser" Gold a

Now you're treading on the very impetus for all this co-ed kerfuffle in the first place... "I want to earn eagle scout too", if you put Gold Award on the same page in the public eye as Eagle Scout... well, Eagle scout just won't be as special anymore, now would it. Yeah, I don't see the BSA's number one marketing tool (much to my chagrin) being undermined by non-Eagle awards.

less to do with safe spaces, more to do with it's much easier and far more effective to train boys in an all boy environment and train girls in an all girl environment. They learn at different rates, they grow at different rates, they take on burdens at different rates. I don't think anyone has suggested we create nunnery and convents... being co-ed in a wide variety of activites and social settings is good and healthy, but in the purposes of character development within a program structure, (or even in a school setting) being able to tailor lessons to a specific gender to capitalize

I simply asked a question about where you draw a line, where there is no compromise. I drew a conclusion from your line of debate that you draw no lines and only rely on the populous at large to decide what lines are drawn. If that's as far as you want to take it, that's fine. I really have no comprehension of this line of thought so I don't know what else to say.

yep, the uniform and the structure were to give form to what boys were doing anyway. we're going to go back to ignoring the uniform and the structure.

I don't even know where to begin. So if a community at large decides murder is acceptable and therefore legal, this is a point of compromise for you and you accept it? um, ok.

Perhaps, but that's what was said.

that's a shame, shouldn't we always be in a position to have something to learn? And conversely, who's to say we couldn't put ourselves in a position to teach the guests something about how we do things.

This is what we're getting from the new Scouts, it's like the reformation. "the scouts in this area will just let their patrols go on activities together without adults, just without uniforms" "the troop in this area will just have co-ed patrols" "the lodge in this area will keep doing AoL ceremonies, just without sashes" "the pack in this area will just have male leadership with the girl cubs because we can't get women involved"

I whole-heartedly agree that we should teach others to intervene. I see this as a societal problem at large. We are preached "if you see something, say something", "do not interfere, call the authorities", etc. It's why we get 100 cell phone videos of someone getting assaulted, and no one (let alone 10 people) step in to stop the assault. In England, the horrific video of Lee Rigby being hacked to pieces in broad daylight in the middle of London, while dozens if not hundreds of on-lookers just stood by and video taped it still haunts me. A scout is brave.

I remember hearing something at membership meeting this year, about how national crunched the numbers and in their decision to reach changing demographics and single-mother house holds, they threw this factoid in there, that they can always count on former boy scouts and eagle scouts to be members. It feels like these decisions were all made under the assumption that Boy scout and eagle scout alum would sign their families up regardless of what they did to change the program. Now, I have no more to go on except that little blurb, but it certainly seems to me that the dropping of all traditio