skeptic

Of course, once it all shakes out, that 82,500 is likely to be far less. I cannot see anything being approved without some vetting, especially with the ones that apparently were just pushed through at th last minute.

It is not the Oath and Law that are flawed, but the individuals that choose to not adhere as most of us, "today", interpret it. We come back to the idea that somehow we in this time in history are responsible for the misguided peceptions and attitudes of another era. And, even then, there were many groups that were able to welcome the Black youth in some manner, often having to buck local attitudes and so on. It is never going to be "fixed" in the past, and human nature will never allow it to be totally "fixed" today. That is on the individuals, not the organization. As is so well stated in the Saturday Evening Post article from 1935 I shared a few days ago, the positive far outweighs the negative, and over time, the overwhelmingly good effects on youth and communities far surpasses the bad of those that choose or chose, as individuals, to NOT adhere to the precepts that make the huge majority of youth, and adults, so worthy of positive reflection. I continue to be annoyed and frustrated by those that have impossible expectations, especially in a society that has benefited so much overall from Scouting and its "best" actions. Darkness is always dispersed by light if the light is allowed to shine.

This is simply sad, but also very frustrating. The very organizations and groups that contribute so much to the betterment of our communities are now at the point of withdrawing almost all of their effort due to our misquided legal system. We are looking pretty much at the ideal of "the good samaritan" conundrum. Nobody will do what they can see needs to be done, or improved, due to fear of litigation that is rarely a direct result of their interactions. Bad people exist in society, and a few, find ways to sneak into a position to do harm. But, if we are all afraid of the very slight possibility of being held accountable for actions beyond our logical control, we do not make the efforts. It is a lot like the doctors that no longer paractice due to the high cost of trying to protect from mistakes, often of others in a procedure in which they are peripheral. One oversight, or one misstep, neither intended, should not ruin the greater good done by programs, service groups, and churches. And, if something does, legitimately happen, the larger umbrella institution should not be held accountable just because their subsidiary made a poor decision. We, as a century old unit in a Methodist church may no longer have a meeting place after this year due to this morass of fear and legal concerns. The local church loves us, but now, the larger Church is recommending no further affiliation, and has told the individual churches that they are on their own if they choose to continue. Since most churches do not have money to burn, and now insurance is either too costly, or simply no longer offered, they are closing the doors. Again, what is wrong with this picture? What is wrong with this picture?

While there is apparently some helpful connections that occur through NESA for the aged out Eagle, most of it is aimed at trying to reengage the members locally and to offer scholarships. The books are one of those resources, just as the subsidiary puff items. They are only another option, and few local chapters are particularly active, as it is another one of the pieces of our "hour a week" committments. None of us have inexhaustible time for doing good things, and so we have to choose what is important and what we may be good at. NESA serves a purpose, and in our Council, it does take lead on the annual Eagle recognition, including a speech contest for a youth speaker, and a small local scholarship. The books are interesting, but they are just another vehicle to a goal. Respond, or don't. Now that I seem to have gotten the basics they have on file accurate, I just ignore the cards, or politely call the number and let them know I am fine, and not in a position to dom more than allow it. I believe that you also can ask to no longer be included in the book(s).

Simply speaking to some of the members.

It seems to me that you answered your own comment. Other than the paperwork, what is different if the two units, one boy and one girl, actually fly together, as it were? KISS should be the guide word here. Too many of us are far too "anal" much of the time. JMHO

So, at least somebody in the media thought to take note of the Elephant.😬

We can only hope that most who choose to sign in will choose also to adhere to the rules. But, there is never an absolute. And it has little to do with BSA, but rather with the reality of the bad side of human nature. And to think somehow because the precepts of BSA are upright and on target those in it will be also is naive. But, if the heavy majority are being aware and paying attention, it is far less likely to happen.

Let's put another exclamation point. It is not that the YP was not enough, it was that it was not followed. As we have trumpeted regularly, YP is only as good as its proper use. And, in reality, even before the much enhanced rules, most things would have been avoided if precautions were in place and action taken when it appeared something was not as it should be.

I suspect that many girl troops do not choose to be separate. Depends on the members and the established interactions with a boy troop, or not. It seems though that separate patrols would allow pretty much the same thing for much of the time in a coed group. The thing is, it should be the youth that decide, not the out of touch National hierarchy. All Scouting is local; remember?

And that is part of growing up. Why should scouts not be exposed just like non scouts? But, coed and separate can all work together as needed. If all are an option, then each works the best they can in their particular unit. New directions might derive for some, while others may choose to forego the challenges. Twice, way back when, we encountered GS groups actually backpacking and we shared nearby spaces. Everybody enjoyed those encounters, and we had a couple of lively and different campfires. Also, once, when we were camped at Balboa Camp in Balboa Park, San Diego over a spring break, I had to deal with Girl Scouts at the gate that separated the two camps. The female leaders were also challenged, and one indignant that "our boys" would distract "her" girls. Kind of funny, really. Proper YP supervision is the only must. It was in the noted interactions, and it is if you have a coed group. We do not need to make it more of a challenge than needed; rather, we should be embracing those challenges. Afterall, B.P. responded to the girls that showed up in mass at the early London gathering by turning to Agnes to develop a program for them. But, we all know that coed has been normal in much of the world almost from the outset, and today is close to universal.

Not a grabber, but maybe one of those little dust pans on the end of a pole with a special broom? Or maybe someone can design a small portable vacuum that would do the job, solar powered perhaps? Do not have a dog, so do not have that issue. But, when I drop things at times, it can be a real challenge; I do not seem to bend well.😗

That simply shows me that the male youth are not willing to step up. The real leaders will come to the top, given the opportunities. If the girls are taking the lead, what does that say for the boys? They can either take the challenge, or let the girls do the job and simply coast. Again, the ones that want to will come to the fore. Still, just my own view.

It works fine with Cubs. One or the other, or both. No reason it cannot work with older youth. It is all a bunch of nonsense that somehow they cannot mix. In really small units, we lose that option for the random girl to join. As long as you keep the leadership, male and female, in order and follow the YP guidelines there should be no issue. As far as girls and boys and leadership is concerned, the boy that is ready will not be buffaloed by a slightly more mature girl who like to take charge. That is, in my view, basically faux psychology based on 20 years of subbing in middle schools and lower, and simply watching them at camp where all girl units have little issue mixing when necessary.

Some, especially we more seasoned individuals need some type of walking stick. I now carry at least one hiking pole in my car for just general use in areas where I may be walking and need balance aid. I actually always try now to have a set on real hikes, whether in the city, or more wild areas. Again, balance at least, and often simply something on which to lean. Now if I can figure a way to add a grabber of some sort, I will be set to do my civic duty and leave it cleaner than I found it. And I can do it without a lot of bending. On our beach cleanups now, I always use the grabber; even the cheap ones work well, though more sturdy one are better, other than heavier.

Well, since we have the ubiquitous note at the article's end that Skylar is considering legal action. Who would have thought that would not pop up? Back to the legal morasses we create with our "creative" system.

This is a very odd perspective to me in scouting. Not sure what you mean by this. I do not see a program or council wide concern regarding safety rules, other than the foolishness relating to basic tool use and age, especially if properly suprevised. I know of no Scouters that have serious issues with helmets, knee and arm guards, proper foot wear, eye protection, shooting safety rules, and so on. Now restrictions on certain games is another story, as it is so vague. Again, we do also have the concerns with litigation that rise up regularly. So, for example, the old king of the mountain, or dog pile is frowned upon and basically banned. Overprotection can be a disservice to youth when it does not allow them to test themselves. I may be missing something, or maybe my age perspective is showing?

Seems to me that once again we really are stymied by our ridiculous legal system. The constant fear of law suits does not contribute to reporting things that are not absolute.

Uniforming is only a tool, and even on the youth level NOT required. The units can choose their "uniform", and it does not have to be a class A type, in reality. We hark back to the days when the majority of units likely had little more than a neckerchief, and makeshift bits and pieces. Scouts were encouraged to save to earn a uniform. But, few early units would have been able to pose as a group in the recognized "uniform" of the period. While we encourage a complete uniform, and we have a substantial closet, we are sort of a waist up unit, as the youth outgrown pants far too quickly, and while we have shorts and such in the closet, the sizes are a challenge for older scouts especially. Many Scout groups around the world are similar, in that they have that absolute minimum of a necherchief over a simple shirt, often withouth any patches.

This might overlap with the other attempted discussion of what we might like to see, or feel is important for improvements. Can they develop some type of background check method that can apply to those sort of "in between" adults? YP, period, and then background to include proper reference contacts? But, they do not pay for full membership, but rather a lesser fee to cover the legal clutter? Reality still applys. We need to not ignore warning signs or fall back on the good guy, well known disconnect. The two deep and no one on one with a youth are critical, and that applys to parents also. Our unit has struggled for years, due to our makeup with lesser opportunity families, to assure a youth is not left stranded, and if is, that we have a mechanism to safely get them to their guardians. And I have a few times been concerned that once we got the youth to their place of residence, that they would be okay, based on our knowledge of the home situation. Thin lines, and hard decisions once in a while, over time. It is sad that I am not overly confident that the child protection departments in many of our government entities are that "safe". We read of many night mares, many that seem repetitive and getting kicked down the road. Meanwhile, we, as an organization are being ravished by the unbalanced and impossible expectations of "absolute" safety or else.

Unless I am confusing it with one of the many others I have read over the past decade or two, it discusses the interactions of professionals in the early days, including their often running the summer camps and having real interactions with real commissioners.

Have you read the book The Scouting Party"?

Connected to my tale was the year I voiced the idea that the middle level managment and office people that worked in the various regional and district offices should be put into the stores at the peak times when getting proper coverage was a serious challenge. My thought was, of course, that they would reconnect a little with the reality of the customer. Of course I was told I was nuts, even though most of those same workers were given holiday time off because their jobs were in hiatus pretty much. Sound familiar to one suggestion here?

I find this current disconnect discussion interesting, as when I was a retail manager for a large company, they began the top down nonsense. Most of the ones making these decisions once worked in stores and faced their market users in some manner. And, at the store, and usually the next "level" they were aware of the realities of everyday interactions with both staff and customers. But, then came the idea that it is cheaper to manage from above and it began the slow fall to almost oblivion. Local stores no longer were able to viably serve their local needs, and specific departments were told to buy such and such in particular group estimates of volume. This in turn, caused serious markdown issues in many stores whose cleientel was not responsive to the products. Service had been a mainstay for decades, and specialty areas had true professional "associates" that were expert in their lines and worked on a commission basis. Most made far more that way than a simple clerk, and they did it by "selling" the products to the matched patrons. But, of course, some made too much money, even though it was earned by moving the merchandise, and so they changed the pay design and most of the experts either left or retired if they could, and many had many years. But the sad thing is, was that what worked was not built upon, but rather cast aside for "modern" concepts. That is how I was let go as a specialist jewelry manager after 20 years. Ironically, the year they eliminated my job, our department had led the L.A. market in every category of profit and sales, and we were in the top five in the nation. Yet, I lost my job, as specialty managers were not needed anymore. And, those tactics put them into out of control losses and recently bankruptcy as well. Hmmmmm.