skeptic

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Why is the answer Kosnoff when he did not write the article nor was he quoted in the article?

"Just wondering about this.  I have seen several articles lately about LC owned camps being worth $10 Billion, apparently according to Kosnoff."  And he is NOT the champion of the people some seem to think, as should be obvious from some of his actions and his meddling with parts of the procedure and being warned by the judge.  I suspect you actually know this.

Oh stop being sensible.  Just because ther majority of the World Scouting has little issue with coed, and we even have girls in cub packs with their own Den, why would we somehow think coed in regular scouts should be okay with proper precautions and rules.  You would think we would want to draw as many youth as possible and make the needed adjustments.

2 minutes ago, Tron said:

Not sure how accurate that is. With BSA in this lawsuit there might be an emphasis to overestimate the value of the lands owned. Additionally, until you look into the deeds and land grants you really don't know what the BSA really owns, or owns and has the right to sell. I've seen land grants owned by non-profits where the land was donated with clauses that if the non-profit attempts to sell/liquidate that the land ownership reverts back to the decedents of the donators. 

The answer is fairly simple; Kasnoff .

25 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

The updated current guide to safe scouting makes it clear she cannot tag along with a boy troop. So, I can see why the SE is saying they can’t support this Scout as a lone scout. It seems like it is enabling a co-ed unit. 

This from the most recent:  "

Adult Supervision

Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings. There must be a registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over must be present for any activity involving female youth. Notwithstanding the minimum leader requirements, age- and program-appropriate supervision must always be provided. 

Have to note; the police left your apartment and basically did nothing?  Why, and are they also being sue?  Simply trying to clarify this a little.  

Also, once again, we have the perjorative renaming of the IV files, most of which were not abuse records.  Yes, too many were, and some were not handled well at all.  Still, it has been shown that many other factors were involved, including people like the police noted above.  Also not noted in this short is the fact that the IV files did on more than one occasion from the records themselves, stop someone.  All this prior to the insta-check of the computer era.  Can I again suggest, these things need to be balanced and put forth most of the broader information.  

Please, none of the calling me someone against fixing the issue, just want the window to have the broad perspective that is possible with a bit more investigation.  Many are responsible, and some continue to be ignored due to the sensationalism BSA brings to the table.  And, also due to how many public agencies are almost imposssible to hold accountible, and too many issues from the problem being viewed in a differewnt societal light.  Withold further judgment

We have a local issue, or confusion perhaps, in regard to the use of the Lone Scout program to allow girls to join when they have not been able to find the minimum number, or their family location and schedules do not fit the limited options.  I am aware that the program has been used in other parts of the country, and from what I hear, successfully.  Those young women are able to work on their own schedules and also join in with other units as they can.

I have read the explanation of Lone Scouting a number of times, and I do not see how this is not a viable option for these youth.  But our local council executives refuse to allow the option, insisting we start a unit or they go to one of the three in the area.  When we got three, briefly, they said we could have the unit, but after the year ended, that disappeared and our one still interested young woman is like in limbo.  She meets with the troop, which her brother is in as well, and has worked with two of the nearby girl troops  on occasion, but they do not fit their family dynamic, especially since she is comfortable with our group and her brother being there.  

The obduracy of the local executive seems to us to be foolish, as getting the young people into the program should be a priority, and discouraging them is not good optics, at least from my view.  Of course, I found we actually have some Lone Scout girls at the other end of the council; but that leader just went directly to National when our local office said no.  And those you women are doing well in that status from what I could see at a recent MB event for the council.  

Just looking for comments and possibly options.  We are considering doing what was done at the other side of  the council so as to keep the young woman involved; and we do have some girl cubs coming up, so we still might be able to start a unit.  Of course, in my view, we should simply have one unit with a girl patrol anyway if enough are there; but assure we have the female adults in place as well, which we do.  

4 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

I'm just ready for this 40 year chapter of my life to be over.The money will be nice but being able to finally shut the door on all of this just so I can finally have some peace of mind far out weighs anything else.Having to open up this can of worms was far worse than I could've ever imagined. Especially having been through therapy,was in  inpatient therapy for 6 months.The wound is just as painful today than it was 40 years ago.I guess that will never go away.

Just a note.  My "sad" emoticon is not about the comment directly, only that it seems to verify one of the early concerns I proferred; that ripping off the scabs and bringing it all back might be worse than leaving it alone and focusing onl the present to keep it from happening again.  No easy answers, and this post seems to suggest that, as have a couple of others on here that are survivors.

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Your points are well taken.  Switzerland.  Mexico.  etc.  

I've hesitated responding because of extreme political intensity here.  IMHO, it's not a gun problem, but perhaps gun control could help save lives.  ... perhaps could break the cycle ...  I'll avoid deciding either way on that ... I value the bill of rights just too much to take it lightly.  

My view.  This is a fundamental civility, empathy and understanding the real hard facts of life.  These murders are playing out a demented fantasy to show their personal pain. 

Scouting has a place in this discussion.  Hard lessons teach understanding your actions and choices have implications and results.  Example ... You forget to zip your tent shut?  Then you and your buddy are going to sleep with mosquitos and/or rain soaked sleeping bags.   These small, safe scouting level screw ups help teach survival, empathy and responsibility to each other.  

Is NRA good or bad?  I don't know, but political vilifying NRA is just another demented fantasy that stops larger reflection on what the heck is going on.  

"Is NRA good or bad?"  

My long time perception is that the original NRA was and still can be positive player in this issue.  But, that status has been eroded by the politics at have taken over the organization.  I have discussed rational and common sense ideas related to this with a number of NRA members and somewhat radical, in my view, gun owners.  One of those is my older brother.  He agrees almost whole heartedly that reasonable training and barriers are essential, and says he would have no problem with them.  Then he turns around and starts with the corruption of the 2nd Amendment nonsense and goes off on the common tangent we hear about this.  Yet he just agreed that training and restrictions are important for owning and using a firearm.

He has taught his own sons, and their children how to safely use guns, and will absolutely stop them if they abuse the privilege.  So, I find it even more difficult to understand this disconnect.  

Still, much of what NRA still offers is viable and positive.  They just need to get back to the simple premise of responsibility and safety, and away from the noise about "taking our guns" and so on.  That of course is part of the POL problem, as many use it to gain a foot hold of some sort over some who are not necessarily rational already.  

JMHO of course.

BTW it is a federal regulation that school district must give scouting the same access to students that they give to any other outside group. Every school district has at some point outside groups that come in to interact with students from speakers to book mobiles and so forth. Check out the BSA access law.

As noted, this is in fact a "law".  Yet if we confront the school or district with it, have we opened it up or simply made the possibility of cooperation more difficult?  We have struggled in our council for years with this, more in some districts than others.  Much of that falls on the individual school and its staff.  When a school has a principal and or teachers that are positive on scouting, and who know how many Eagle projects, for example, are being used on the campus, they tend to be more open.  But the media continues to poison the well, and that is something that is too often beyond an individual unit to fix, other than indirectly.  

One thing that appears to have been somewhat effective in our council is the actual recognition of educators using the Fretwell Award.  It is now a part of our annual recognition, given at the same time as regular Scouter awards.  What is crazy is that so few councils apparently really even know it exists.  In our council, I specifically asked our district chair and scout executive WHY we were not using it?  They were basically not even aware it existed.  https://41zfam1pstr03my3b22ztkze-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/522-05918_EKFretwell_Guide.pdf  Take a look.

      At every camp I have attended, the issue of Gun Safety and so on has been major.  Range access is monitored and anyone violation things either leaves or sits for a bit, dependenton the problem.  No Scout or Scouter is allowed to shoot without the proper precautions, including ear and ey protections and, if unfamiliar with a gun, direct aid or monitoring.  The merit badge includes a major protion on Gun Safety and I believe touches on the gun control issue, depending on the state.  

     The NRA still isa major supporter of BSA, and part of that is because of the eductional elements of the BSA programs, which evolved from the original NRA structure and educative ideas.

    As we struggle in our seemingly impossible political morass over the Second Amendment and Gun Control and safety, what is our role in  getting past the obdurance and foolish overreactions?  Our youth and leaders do not seem to not understand the basic needs and safety issues, and again, they cannot handle the guns without proving they know how and can be safe. 

   So why is that simple premise, in some broader form, not acceeptible to the political naysayers?  Common sense should suggest that real testing of some sort should be a gun requirement, just as it is for driving a car and so on.  It should not be this hard to put that idea of safety and VERIFIED QUALIFICATION  into play.  And all guns licensed in some manner seems prudent.  Types of weapons possibly restricted based on certain factors of course also make sense to someone that looks beyond the hyperbole about "taking our guns".  

    So, what do we do as responsible community mentors?  How might we strengthen even more our BSA Gun program?

Once again we are experiencing the pain and suffering of a warped society with children killed in Texas.  Most of us understand it is not the weapon itself, but the individual that uses it, that is the challenge.  But, for whatever reason, and I personally lay it at the feet of the politicians on both "sides", nothing changes.

Meanwhile, we see the BSA under continuing siege to be eliminated due to legal and emotional drama brouoght on by a very small group of sick members of society and some very poor reactions of BSA leadership.  

My point is not that the abuse issue in BSA is not real and does not need to be addressed, but rather, that the real premise of Scouting, the real foundatinal tenets of the Oath and Law, have proven for decades to help youth become active and valuable citizens that are positive parts of society.  

I would suggest that the BSA and its real foundation is sorely needed today, even more so thatn when it started over a century ago.  

Just saying.

Once again, the simple concept of local accountability and common sense are lost in the egos of too many adults.  Meanwhile, the youth issue is not being properly addressed.  I too often see the expectation that somehow someone from "on high" can dictate to those in the trenches.  But real Scouting is local, which means the units directly.  That is WHY there is a committee.  And their option should be to get the input of the COR, if necessary, but try to find the solution within by actual adult discussion, not childish accusations and hysteria.  Or so an old guy sees it.

16 hours ago, satl8 said:

2017 and 2021 we were issued a Crew flag, certainly wasn't a cotton 3'X5' flag by any means but our Crew Leader was issued one and told to take it on the trail with them both times.

I still have one from our trek in 1979.  The crew honored me with it when we got off trail.  

The story reminded me of our Philmont Ranger in 1979.  He had a nickname, Bear Bait.  He was sleeping outside while out with a couple other rangers, but he was first year and had been the target of a few jokes.  So, when he felt like someone was trying to roll him over in his bag, he reached up and smacked at who he thought it was, one of the others tormenting him.  The bear did not like getting slapped and proceeded to reciprocate.  Fortunately, the bag was thick enough, and the ranger able to curl up within it; and his screams woke the others nearby who ran the bear off.  But he ended up with some stitches, but otherwise no serious injuries.  And he did not let it send him home.  When we had him, it was his third or fourth summer.

Definitely a YP issue as discussed.  IF the tale is accurate, it appears some individual has a problem with the color pink worn by a male.  And that is very biased, or worse; IMHO.  One way of course would be to ask the whole troop to wear a pink shirt; but not sure that would do anything but annoy someone.  Still, it might help the young lad too, especially if the other troop members show their support somehow.

Years ago, we had an 11 year old that was always in sine conflict with other youth, both at scouts and with peers in school and neighborhood.  He had a really difficult time as he was very small and had two sisters that drove him crazy at home and he was the one in trouble.  Also a domineering father.  Anyway, he had ridden his bike to the meeting and got into it again and chose to go home.  It was not dark, and his parents allowed him to ride, so I told him okay, but we would check to see he got home okay.

We have a large hall in the church that we used for games, and we were up there near the meeting end.  Here comes the boy with his bike, covered with egg and dirt.  He had been jumped in the school yard next door; not hurt physically, just made a mess of.  Well, the rest of the troop had to be restrained from running to the school to find those responsible, because he was part of the troop.  That was a turning point for him.  While he never bade it past FC, he stayed involved into JC.  He is now a father with a GS and Cub and retired from the Army.  Scouting works.

Wasn't there some type of atttempt by GS to attach their suit to the bankruptcy?

There goes one week of cookie profit.  And into the pot for survivors I would think.

Thanks for sharing.  More perspective on the evolving issue.  I find myself wondering though is these suggestions are universal, or seriously tied to a  small population or culture?  There are examples historically of seemingly very opposite populations, especially with the early matriarchal groups dominated by strong women who appear to have been the dicision makers.  

I tend to think that the basic ability for women to do most things is tempered only by their physical limitations, and that their mental capabilities will often overcome those challenges, either by actual effort to change certain genetic factors, or by creating aides to simply overcome those physical challenges.  So it seems to me that girls will adjust, as will boys, given the opportunity and as little adult interference as possible.  JMO of course, as am not an expert, only a longtime observer.

3 hours ago, Eagledad said:

It’s not about functioning together, it’s about maximum growth opportunity . Scouting is not about enduring each other to eventually get along. As you said, boys and girls are mixed to all the time. The scouting program puts the youth in situations where they makes decisions that expose their character.

Boys aren’t intimidated by the girls natural instinct of management and details, they welcome it. But many adults confuse the boys stepping back as a result being intimidated. It is instead the logical action of giving space for letting the girls do what they do best, and the boys find boring. Boys by nature want action and adventure. That other stuff like meeting, planning, and planning menus is not in their wheelhouse. Taking the girls out of the equation forces the boys to step to the mundane responsibilities of getting to to the actions and adventure.

This reminds of when I asked a den of Webelos why they chose the troop they where about to cross over to, they said that troop had the best game at the end of the meeting. Action and adventure.

As for the experts, they can’t all be wrong. Many are good at their job. Is the idea of genders learning better when the aren’t mixed really so hard to believe. Even you admit they are wired differently. I also have years of experience working with boys and girls and I came up with my own conclusions of developmental growth of boys and girls in different environments. Scouting is an area where boys grow better without girls. At least until puberty.

Barry

Back to my perception that balance and awareness must take place.  And today, when puberty seems to begin earlier, especially for girls, your comment has room for adjustment perhaps?  The part about girls being more apt to do the "boring" planning is true, but with that comes the indiction I observed that once confronted with that, the boys often step up and become involved, even at an earlier age.  

It still seems to me that the membership issue would improve with coed, especially if larger units were to have the girl patrols if necessary.  Then the older youth would still be pretty much on the same level for more advanced leadership.  But we are missing the boat with girls if we insist on separate groups.  

5 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Although I support female youth in Scouting, the answer to your question is that we are wired differently, and there is some benefit in single gender programming.

Being wired differently is not an answer, simply an excuse.  If the youth can function in school groups or church groups and so on, then they should be able to do so in Scouting.  As noted more than once from my own experience as a sub teacher, which meant many variants in students, groups became balanced pretty much once stabilized.  While middle school girls often took over a group initially, in many case the boy(s) came forward to challenge.  And in many of those, the group output became far more viable and reflected both sides, so to speak.  Sorry, the psychologists that claim the males are intimidated by females in that age group are not working with complete data.  Too often, they construct their own slanted surveys and so on to arrive at their predetermined position.  Again, I spent many years in a half dozen middle schools and below, and what I noted was almost universal.  

We might also note the best of the Ships and Crews in our own programs that are universally mixed in gender, yet function very well with the various points of view, based on gender perception, seeming to lead to a better balance and more success.  

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It's a stepwise adjustment.  Things will evolve over time.

For me, it is past the time for evolving and time to make the logical change.  How many more girls would already be in units if they made just that one adjustment?  What do I know? I tend to look at thing with reality and logic.

The Lone Scout issue is interesting to me.  I know that I have read on this forum, as well as a couple of other threads on Scouting about girls joining as Lone Scouts due to not having enough girls for a troop.  So I know that it is allowed, or so it appears.  We have struggled to start a girl unit; but we got the minimum briefly, but soon lost one, then another.  I had suggested the Lone Scout direction anyway, but the local Executive says we do not meet criteria.  Of course, what he really means is that he want another number for a unit, evenif he then approves three when we started it, now down to one.  And since we no longer have the number we have one girl in limbo, and he still says no Lone Scout.  

To me, this is foolish, as if we get a few Lone Scouts to start, we might find enough others with time; and in the meantime, the young women get to do the program.  The one we still have has a brother in the troop who is our SPL and bugler.

Of course, I personally am still of the opinion that there should not need to be two untis separately.  Simply have a girl patrol, just as we have girl dens.  It is nuts to lose the small numbers due to that idiocy, in my view.  

A bill being proposed to deal with private institutional youth schools and such.  How much is this in some way similar to the abuse issue with BSA and others?

https://www.aol.com/entertainment/revealing-sexual-abuse-allegations-paris-191112644.html

Well, I am going to have to do a better job proofing.  Or just turn in my teaching credential.  🙃 Of course, since I am retired, I do not use it anyway.

39 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I know there often is a back and forth about suicide. Some say it's the ultimate selfish act by the one who lost the battle. Others who know the anguish understand it CAN be a severe mercy. I DO NOT condone or encourage self harm of any kind and certainly not the most extreme. I share these thoughts as someone who has been there. I thought everyone would be better off, including me, in my mortal coil absence. It seemed merciful to all involved, which of course is distorted and doesn't account for the good or the potential for healing, forgiveness, restoration, redemption and love that "covers a multitude." My wife told me just yesterday that, when I was at my most troubled, she prayed God take me if it be His will. "You were in such anguish and mental torment." When I told my mother about my childhood, and not in full by any means, she said, looking off into space, "Maybe it would have been better for me if you hadn't been born." It caused her that much pain. (She was talking about herself, to me clear.) I don't think she understood what came out of her mouth. I have to choose to live. So far, it's worked for 50 years.

Looking over that precipice, if only for a few moments, is terrifying.  Fortunately, most do draw back and with luck they come to grips in other ways.  For me, my losest points have often drawn words into a journal of verse and essay.  And rereading things from years back frightens me on occasion, but also makes me realize that hope can still be nourished.  I am fortunate to have somehow developed a personal spirituality and am grateful for having been guided to that place by some important people in my life when I was at the low point.  And they in turn were able to help me reconnect with the lighter things from the past and come to understand a little better.  That is just me, and I pray others might find that guidance in some manner aw well.