Gwaihir

20 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Actually, the tool to fight tyranny is called a  ballot.  You’ll have much more success than going after Pence or Trump (or any other so called Tyrant) with an AR-15.  I would not recommend that approach.

The ballot is one tool, yes and it's working well in Venezuela... North Korea... Cuba... Syria... 

Frederic Douglass, who I'm going to go out on a limb here, is far smarter and more wise than most of us, and rose up from actually being a slave said 

"A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box. Let no man be kept from the ballot box because of his color. Let no woman be kept from the ballot box because of her sex"

The ballot box only works, when elections are still held in a democratic republic... if that disappeared, what ballots are you casting?  

1 minute ago, Col. Flagg said:

I am sure the number of murderous sprees using an AR-15 are pretty low compared to other firearms.

You ask any cop about gateway drugs like pot and violent crime and give him your statement above and he'd laugh out loud.

violence by long guns is statistically non-existent compared to hand guns.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

2 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

Really? So people do pot never kill anyone while on pot? Never drive stoned and kill someone?

Really? C'mon.

drunk driving kills something like 30,000+ people a year... we don't hear calls for the ban on alcohol.  And when we did ban alcohol, we quickly learned how the black market meets that demand, drives organized crime through the roof and results in more death and destruction.  

I mean sure, banning meth has done wonders for the horrific opioid crisis we are in where close to 50,000 die every year. 

and of course, none of this takes into account that of all these things, one is protected by a constitutionally enumerated right... 

Just now, Col. Flagg said:

Why is it that people want to take guns away from legal use under the auspices that access to them is bad and leads to crime, but they use the opposite argument when pot is mentioned? Access to guns=bad. Access to pot=good.

Either access to something is bad or good. You can't have it both ways...and be credible.

because it's people, responsibility and application that matter, not the object.  

I just find it funny that Donald Trump is literally a dictator, Mike Pence is going to electrocute homosexuals, cops are racist murderers who prey on black Americans and yet the tool one would need to fight an oppressive tyranny, everyone wants to restrict to only the government use.  That seems like a not so smart strategy. 

5 hours ago, FireStone said:

Is there good timing for bringing a gun to school?

Most of this nations history kids brought guns to school, they were part of rifle teams and shooting teams and put them in their lockers.  This isn't a gun problem, it's a people problem.  Somewhere along the way morals, values and the sense of value for human life got impaired. 

36 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

Based on past experience, there will be no changes made.  If we couldn't get sensible gun control regulations passed after a school shooter killed perhaps the most sympathetic group of children ever (young children who still believed in Santa Claus just two weeks before Christmas), we'll never have any changes - not unless we declare the NRA a terrorist organization and retire every politician who takes donations from them.

I don't even begin to know where to start with this asinine comment, and thank you for calling me and 6 million Americans, including hundreds of thousands of cops and both active and retired military, a terrorist.   A Scout is kind, so I won't begin to say what I want to say to this comment. 

4 hours ago, Tampa Turtle said:

If you are the cop  school resource officer. I am not so sure about arming teachers...some of my son's teachers seem nuts. Really.

Utah has had armed teachers for something like 20 years, and there has never been a school shooting, or an incident with teachers harming students with guns.  If a teacher is "nuts" and potentially a danger to students, telling the teacher "don't bring guns to class" isn't going to stop the teacher from harming the student. 

22 hours ago, David CO said:

It is very sad. Unfortunately, it is nothing new.  I think the Bath School Massacre (1927) is still considered by many to be the worst school attack in U.S. history.

Violent crime is still at historic and record lows, the lowest in recorded human history.  

One could argue that this is a direct or indirect result of boys being outcast in society.  Masculinity not being focused, tempered and honed to be production and protective of society, but instead vilified and called toxic, you're evil because you're male.  It's why the BSA should have doubled down on boys and figured out how to reach the boys left out in the cold, instead they opted to forget boys and target getting girls, who are already thriving in society.  It's a damn shame. 

"There are thousands of boys being wasted daily to our country through being left to become characterless, and, therefore, useless wasters, a misery to themselves and an eyesore and a danger to the nation. They could be saved if only the right surroundings or environment were given to them at the receptive time of their lives." - Baden Powell

side note, I love how the cap is no longer part of complete uniforming.  

2 hours ago, Tampa Turtle said:

I keep hearing that "Family Scouting" is NOT synonymous with "Girls in Scouting".

But I just got a scouting email with a FAQ to questions about "Family Scouting". (https://scoutingwire.org/3-places-to-get-answers-to-your-questions-about-family-scouting/?utm_source=scoutingwire&utm_campaign=swvolunteer2142018&utm_medium=email&utm_content=A) and when I go to BSA Brand Center for photos under "Family Scouting" it is clearly based on 90% girls for Cub Scouts. 

Attached is a screen shot. (It is from https://scouting.webdamdb.com/bp/#/folder/3482216/)  They couldn't show boys and girls together or a family with a son and daughter? I know this is for recruiting...but really? Is it just me? I mean none of this stuff is probably cheap. I'd much rather see something like @Cambridgeskip's picture of his "co-ed" scouts.

 

 

Devils advocate, if they're trying to set a tone of separate but equal, this is the mental imagery you'd do it with.  girls all together without boys, doing cub scouting. 

9 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

I predict girls will find a way to join Troops affiliated with this Forum before the official date by National. 

A Scout is Trustworthy... Obedient... lol... naw, just foolin. 

5 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

I have a hard time believing that 100% of the girls in that pack just happened to choose the exact same uniform configuration. 

I can't even get all of the kids in my Den to consistently wear a neckerchief slide as opposed to just tying the thing in a knot. And miraculously somehow this girls den/pack pulled that one off, too. 

A statistical impossibility if you ask me. 

it is possible but it's certainly improbable.   

9 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

I think some will. We have been getting inquiries. They may go elsewhere. But there will be some.

and that was an initial concern... when girls show up, but the numbers are small... National will change the program to "fix" that problem, and now we're no longer talking about "girls doing the same program the boys have done" as was pitched.  There will be changes to the program to meet girls needs, something we were told repeatedly simply doesn't exist, that girls and boys have the same interests and are basically the same person, with the same needs.  

(this is of course my speculation based on my observations)

3 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

Changing back to all boy means actually kicking out girls already in Cub Scouts. It would be PR suicide. Never going to happen.

It doesn't matter what legal protections they might have to do so. The public backlash would kill the organization. 

Again, the exercise at play here was that this decision already killed the organization (membership drop offs to level of unsustainablility) 

Do you then kick the girls out or just fold up shop and we all go play e-sports? 

Just now, Tampa Turtle said:

Care to pick a number? Just for fun.

I left my gambling days behind me in my 20s.   

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

These seems like speculation on speculation but heck, I’m game.  Once BSA admitted girls and stated that the program will work with them expect a loss at the Supreme Court if any attempt starts to kick them out.  I think you would see the significant loss of FOS contributions and BSA bankruptcy.  This isn’t rewriting a handbook and leadership retirement.  These are individuals our organization invited to join and kicking them out at a later date would be likened to (and have the same result as) kicking out Jewish or black members.  Like it or not, this change is permanent.

it's totally speculation.  this is all thought exercise since nothing is in place.  However, didn't the SCOTUS already rule BSA could create their own membership rules?  Wouldn't that ruling mean they could change back to all boy?  

Just now, WisconsinMomma said:

It's going to be up to the adult troop leadership to help show boys with doubts that scouting is still great and there are great opportunities for them in Scouting. 

This flies directly in the face of what the boy wants.  He will be made to comply.  So like I said, it's taboo to go back to what worked, we must maintain all change regardless.  15% boys don't buy into adult explanation, decide this is not what they want and walk... that's ok.  

3 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I disagree on the interpretation of the message -- adding girl dens and troops does not equal telling the boys to get lost.  

To you, an adult woman.  (because that's what you are as we are conversing, the statement could be for any adult, man or woman, who interprets the message one way or another)

To a teenage boy, that may be different.  

On 2/9/2018 at 12:28 PM, EmberMike said:

I wouldn't have an issue with unique items for girls in the long-term. My issue with it is that this seems entirely counter to what we heard throughout the years of the effort to get girls into Cub Scouts, including from people like me. I believed what I was told and heard, that girls just wanted the chance to be in the BSA, as-is. We were told that the program didn't need to change, that girls could do exactly what the boys were doing, they could sign up and put on the same uniform and go out and be scouts just like the boys. We went out and pushed that message, and I believe it still. And then the first thing we see when the girls are finally allowed in is a girl-specific uniform.

It's not that the skirt is bad at all, just that the timing of it is unfortunate. It makes it really hard for supporters of girls in the BSA to defend our stance that nothing major would have to change to allow girls into the program. Even though a skirt doesn't chaneg the program, it's just fuel on the fire for those who oppose the change to say, "Look! Skirts! Things are changing! We told you so!" 

Your statement is predicated on the fact that those girls were told they MUST wear skorts.  If they were given the option and they chose to wear skorts... I don't see how this affects your argument that nothing major would have to change?  
 

It does lend credence to the concept that girls and boys have interests in different things.  

2 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I think the hard thing is proving that a change is a bad change.  Who decides what is good change and what is bad change and the measurement criteria?  There are a lot of opinions out there.   Since this change is just beginning, it's impossible to know yet if it will be "good" or "bad". 

I agree, we don't know yet, this is all thought exercise.  

I'd say membership dropping by a sizable percentage, maybe double+ of the annual trend in the next 2-4 years would be a good indicator of "bad change"  Unless removing boys from boy scouts is not considered bad change... 

Just now, WisconsinMomma said:

Would you tell the 2% of girls to get lost?   How do you think that would work out for you and for the BSA? 

before I answer, my train of thought is predicated on the yet to be clearly decided concept of "co-ed" troops.   It's certainly more difficult to do because national specifically steered clear of using words like "pilot" or "trial".  But yes, I would.  Would it work out well?  who knows, I didn't think Trump would win either, but here we are. 

conversely, telling the 15% of boys to get lost is ok?  Because that is what the policy change was saying to them (in this hypothetical scenario) 

Just now, WisconsinMomma said:

It's possible but unlikely.  The girls might not show up.  That's going to be the most interesting thing to watch.

Not my point... my point is, if the addition of 2% of girls results in the subtraction of 15% of boys (specifically because of the addition of the 2% of girls, rightly or wrongly)... does anyone have the bravery to tell the 2% of girls, co-ed scouting is ending in an attempt to get the 15% back, or do we just ride the bad decision train into oblivion?  

 

3 minutes ago, gblotter said:

With the Scouting debacle of the 1970s, BSA membership dropped by more than 2 million boys. The bleeding had to stop, so the CSE was forced into early retirement, the Scout Handbook was rewritten, and almost all the experimental changes were reversed. It was a lesson learned at horrific cost. Sadly, some lessons need to be relearned.

reversing those decisions meant change books, reversing this decision means telling some people they can't participate any longer.   big difference. 

8 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

Sorry while you were writing that me and another guy just disrupted your job. Must be a good thing because it is a new change. All change is good. Stability is boring. Tradition is boring*. Are we addicted to change? Yea...we can quit anytime we want!

(*tradition is great when it results in donations from misty eyed wealthy donors)

The funny thing is BSA is saying they want to stay traditional and co-coed and membership has been dropping. GSUSA has always been progressive and female only and membership is dropping. 

I didn't say any and all change was bad, merely that change that is proven to be bad change, should logically result in going back to how it was working most successfully, not continually pushing forward bad change.  

 

3 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I think we're in a place where we need to figure out the best ways to work with the program.  The change is made, now we get to work on making the best of the situation. 

Unless of course, the ultimate answer is to change it back, because that was the best way to work the program.  A truly open mind would be tolerant and accepting of that as a possible outcome.  I still don't quite get why as a society, going back to something that worked, after something that sounded good failed, is so taboo.  

On 2/8/2018 at 6:36 PM, Sentinel947 said:

A time where schools were geographically tighter, and the BSA was allowed in schools... 

Fair enough. I'm pretty young by forum standards. When I was a Cub in the early 2000's most of the parents were involved with their kids in Cubs. Not every single meeting, but helping with requirements, chaperoning on outings, that sort of stuff. There isn't wrong with that, and we don't need every parent to be a registered volunteer. But we do need parents that are involved with their kid's scouting and support it, which it seems @Pselb and their family do well. 

There's a difference between the "Baby Sitters of America" meme and a family that is supportive of their kid and the program but aren't registered volunteers. 

My school was a private school, that was the school of the church that chartered the unit, so this has nothing to do with public schools and chartering.  It might be a conversation about how government forces have forced private schools to shutter, and instituting school choice vouchering might revive them... but that's out of scope for this topic.

I agree that having parents involved is has many positives and allows a lot more flexibility and sometimes parents do everything they can but can't commit to the level needed, but do their best. That said, uniformed adult leadership would bolster the numbers, it would bring a committed investment to the program that would more than likely result in more youth joining and it would filter up to district/council level and have more bodies available to do that volunteer work.  It would also filter up to the troop level as boys (and girls) cross over.  Making it a laissez faire type of atmosphere at the Cub level has, imo, played a role in declines (or at a minimum, stagnation).