Scouter99

I guess that is the issue....

 

Is he completely lost and comes a crossed uninterested.....Or doesn't he care?????? that is the million dollar question.

 

Well tonight I sat down with the spl duties out of the book and asked him if he honestly did the duties one at a time......HIs answer was no to most.......I suggested we wait on the smc and bor till those answers were yes's.

If that worked, then run with it, but I agreed with your initial conclusion that you haven't got any good option except to give it to him. The Guide to Advancement is clear that to deny him credit, you must have sat him down months ago, told him the problems, and given him a clear path to success. (This isn't an endorsement of the policy, it's simply how it is.)

You say you're 4 months in; If you do a 6-month term, and if I were you, your meeting of 6/18 is your "intervention" and the next 2 months are his chance to make good or else not get credit come August.

Scouting membership was buffed up dramatically by the two world wars as the US government included scouting in propaganda laced throughout media. They stopped doing that in 1948' date=' and twelve years later, kids born and raised without that propaganda became old enough to become boy scouts - and didn't want to. And the downhill decline continues.[/quote']

 

You keep couching your arguments in history, but you don't know your history. BSA's membership nearly doubled from 1950-1960 (2.8 to 5.2 million), and reached its peak membership in 1972 at 6.5 million. The exact opposite of your historical claim is true: Boys flocked to Scouting in record numbers from 1950-1972.

 

The shame in this case is that your agument stands on its own without the appeal to the gravity of capital-H history, if it is shaky:

 

Here's the real problem: Culture. The US no longer has the culture that supported and called for a Scouting program. It was founded in the early 20th Century by the progressive movement as a reaction to the industrial revolution and its pollution and child abuse. Today's kids don't need saving from the industrial revolution. They are no longer in need of rescue. They are not unhappy with their conditions. A kid in 1910 went camping and conditions improved for him. A kid in 2010 went camping and he was without anything he wanted around him basically suffering.

Here's what we don't want to face:

 

* Our kids don't want to go scouting. They want to be in the air conditioning and play video games

* Our kids don't want to learn patriotism. They are on the Internet talking with people from around the globe. They are citizens of the world, not this nation.

* Our kids no longer have any freedom at home. Their parents are afraid for them to walk to the bus stop alone without adults guarding them. Scouting used to be patrols with no adults going camping and hiking. Today, there is an adult for every kid.

 

The Boy Scouts have run out of water to sail their ship on. We can protest about values and citizenship and resumes with eagle badges all we want. The ugly, ugly truth that even I, your leftist atheist does not want to face is this: Game over.

 

There is no soil in which to grow scouting. It is a dying activity. Our kids are being raised in a world where very soon robots will do the work and talking, self-aware computers will teach them. You may see that as necessitating scouting for the good of the kids. But you cannot force kids to do something. They don't like it. They don't want it.

 

It isn't a prissy problem. It's not an advertising problem. It's really just a simple problem of we are not those people any more, and our kids don't even like those kinds of people.

 

Were you looking at the survey on gays? We said no, the kids - 90% of them - said yes. They don't want to be like us. They don't want to do this. I'm happy to provide what I do for the kids that do, but I'm not going to believe for a second that us talking or anything BSA does is going to fix it.

 

BSA has hastened the end of scouting through stupidity, but really, they can't fix the problem, because the problem isn't a problem at all. It's just a fact of life I don't want to wear a three cornered hat and stockings, and they don't want to go outside and play.

 

The problem with the argument that modern conveniences keep boys at home, is that we know from membership numbers that at the same time that TV, air conditioning, suburban life and all its comforts were exploding, so was BSA membership. A/C, shag carpet, arcade halls, and TV didn't keep boys at home in 1965, we can't assume that's what keeps them home today. In fact, as Rush fans know all too well, it may be the case that suburban life actually pushes boys right into our arms (nerd time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4) because it denies their nature. But, perhaps the growth in membership had nothing to do with BSA's intrinsic qualities: historians of the US also know the 50s as a "culture of joining"--civic groups of all types, not just the BSA, saw their membership soar.

So, we have a few reasons why there was so much growth: adventure, getting out of the home, getting out of the "mass production zone" suburbs, joining for joining's sake.

 

Your point about patriotism doesn't much play, for me. Patriotism has never played a major role in my scouting experience as either a youth or adult.

 

The fashion at this forum is to timestamp our modern problems 1972, tag them "Improved Scouting Program," and lay them all at the feet of national. And to be sure, drastically changing the program drastically changed what boys were getting, and they clearly didn't want the new menu. However, the program was corrected in 1979, but it hasn't stopped the bleeding. That's where we get to your best argument: Cultural change. There's no culture of joining, anymore, it's all about individualism. Mistrust of institutions is rampant. Mommy thinks Johnny will die if he's out of her sight. In the past, mom and dad wanted junior in the woods, out of the house, and to become a man as soon as possible, preferably before his first armpit hair; now they're scared to death to even consider that he will leave home by 30.

There is also the proliferation of extra-curriculars. I didn't live it, so I will try not to overstate, but the after-school landscape was not as crowded in the past as it is today. Now, Johnny has a lot more options.

Last, in terms of culture still, the baby boom is over. The decline coincided not just with Improved Scouting, but also with the aging-out of the boomers, and birth rates have continued to decline among BSA's core demographic (whitey).

 

The answer, of course, is continued differentiation. The only traditional program that has seen membership growth between 1999 and 2012 is Venturing. Wow, BSA, what a surprise! The most freewheeling program is the only one that's growing. Yet BSA continues to dial back adventure and independence in Boy Scouting. The second thing is to keep reaching out to Spanish-speaking families; they have more kids than whitey, and they don't have the same access to other civic institutions.

ThomasJefferson ... You've got too much agenda. Don't hijack this into some atheist rank. Scouting's always had a strong faith element, right from the start. Plus every man's man that I've know has had a strong faith. They might not shove it down your throat, but it's there.

 

You don't need to deny God to be a man's man. And you don't need to hijack this thread with some atheist junk.

When you were a kid, BSA's national campaign was "Onward . . . For God and Country!" And, just as is true today, the depth to which that effected your personal experience depended upon how much attention your troop paid to that. You don't remember any of the adult politics because you were a kid.

Don't know about "prissy". But it has morphed into something that placates the helicopter parents, the lawyers, and those boys who would rather sit in front of a video game than rappel down a tower. LIke any other organism, it has adapted to the environment in which it finds itself, rather than go extinct.

I think it depends on the troop's situation; our troop covers gear and other costs with monthly dues, so we don't do a lot of fundraising. The boys who sell popcorn or camp cards get the money in their ISA, and sometimes we sell burgers at a fair for the troop treasury. In years where we need a lot of money for a specific purchase (new trailer or new tents etc) we ask the PLC to determine a percentage of popcorn that will go to the troop, and the troop supports the sale to a greater extent.

So, if we were constantly fundraising and the troop really put a lot of work into the sales, then I would support a more collective approach to distributing it. But the famlies in our troop have decided they'd rather pay out of pocket than beat the streets selling things, so we don't, and its perfectly moral that the boys who put in work selling get the money they earned.

Almost never. When I read most of these threads I consider three possibilities: that my troop exists in a Leave-it-to-Beaver parallel plane' date=' that your troops exist in a Twilight Zone, or that there are a lot of lies or exaggerations going around here.[/quote']

 

Really? Since you haven't experienced anything like this, everyone that is reporting that they have must be lying? Is that what you intended to say? Way to show respect for your fellow scouters.

Yeah, we're victims of our panache

Almost never. When I read most of these threads I consider three possibilities: that my troop exists in a Leave-it-to-Beaver parallel plane' date=' that your troops exist in a Twilight Zone, or that there are a lot of lies or exaggerations going around here.[/quote']

 

Really? Since you haven't experienced anything like this, everyone that is reporting that they have must be lying? Is that what you intended to say? Way to show respect for your fellow scouters.

Take a deep breath, innnnnnnnnn . . . . . . . oooouuuuut. Relative to my positive experience in my troop, some of the stories on this forum are so far out and negative that I sometimes wonder if they could be real. Hyperbole, it's a literary device. To answer your next question (extrapolating on your blown gasket), no, I don't actually believe I live in an episode of Leave it to Beaver.

The requirement is NOT to do these things with the Troop you ultimately register with. The requirement is to do these things with A (ANY) BSA Boy Scout Troop.

 

Heck, while in 4th grade, they could have visited with a Troop on the other side of the country for all you know. It would have been perfectly valid.

 

I suggest concentrating on the Boy Scout requirements they are currently working on, and not getting your undies in a twist over what MIGHT have happened in a totally different program.

Well, excuse me for having a question. They "might" do a lot of things, and I haven't said they don't, but what do you think the odds are that in 10 years every Webelos crossover to our troop had an individual Scoutmaster Conference with another troop he had no intention of joining, and never with us? I put it between zip-o and unlikely.

Everyone else, thanks for your input/advice. I mainly wondered what the perspective is on those requirements. We generally only do one event for Webs, it looks like we can help those DLs be more honest if we offer more opportunities and a greater variety of opportunities.

Almost never. When I read some of these threads I consider three possibilities: that my troop exists in a Leave-it-to-Beaver parallel plane, that your troops exist in a Twilight Zone, or that there are a lot of exaggerations or lies going around here. Maybe we just have a very mature troop in terms of live-and-let-live.

The troop used to award 5 or 6 God & Country awards every year through the mid-90s, but we've had several kids who don't hide their atheism, too.

Our youth Chaplain's Aide prays at the end of every meeting without mentioning Jesus, but we have no adult Chaplain. The last Chaplain that we had was a Buddhist.

We rarely do a service on weekend trips, but when we do we use that "Scout's Own" thing, which I find muddled and humorous.

There are a couple Jewish families, and one is a mixed household with a Catholic parent and two sons; one son brings up Judaism almost every time I've ever had him in my car on the way to or from a trip always in a cynical tone about Christians (he's the exception to "almost never"), but the other son knows the Lord's Prayer better than any of the other kids.

So, we have a religious element to our program, but it's not a topic of official conversation, and we don't bring it into Boards of Review.

I'm sure that the county officials who issued a permit to destroy habitat will get right on top of that.

Khaliela, my guess is that you didn't run into an official policy from National (though I have heard stories that there are people there who are actively hostile to neo-pagens), but into a group of bigoted volunteers. You should appeal it up the chain, even if it's only to get it on record.

 

Also, which council was this, and how long ago?

ferns are simply going to naturally grow in that camp including around the camping areas and buildings that doesn't mean someone is planting them. while kuska is the only one here actually making an effort to protect a protected species naturally this isnt in line with the local council. they logged 200+ year old trees illegally without any punishment and then threw out the only person who seems interested in protecting the plants and trees on the camp grounds. - marking out protected species in no way disrupts camp operations unless you think the camp is better off clear cutting everything so no species left there to protect.

They didn't even cut all 48 down, they cut down 38. The majority were cut while the permit was valid, one was not. In terms of the fern, it doesn't matter whether the same tree was cut down in 2010 or 2008.

Quickly Googling "Kim Kuska" . He apparently is a acknowledged contributor in some research papers and field guides, is a field trip leader for Audubon Society, quite the birder, helped rescue a beached baby killer whale in May 1979, "noted" observer of Santa Cruz Bird Club and apparently several others, former biology teacher, involved in scouts for 50 years, ...of course "noted" is a relative term.

I'm simply saying the man may be a really knowledgeable person and gung-ho, but counting birds and butterflies doesn't make a person a "noted environmentalist." It makes a person a bird-counter. I've been an extra in movies, I'm not a "noted actor." Kuska is a hobbyist. I don't appreciate being misled when someone is asking me to "force change."

Anyway, none of us has the full story, and I'd be in favor of him being reinstated.

What annoys me about these discussions is the erroneous use of "BSA." "Boy Scouts of America" didn't cut down trees and screw with the endangered fern, the Silicon Valley Monterey Bay Council's two predecessor councils did. BSA didn't revoke this guy's membership, Silicon Valley Monterey Bay Council did. The old growth trees they cut were cut with a permit, only "some" after it had expired (one in 2010 out of 38 total), and while they should not have done it, cutting them before or after the permit expired doesn't change the fact that the county had no problem with them being cut. So, too, the issue continues with the 2009 report: 1/3 of councils had conducted logging, not "BSA." But even when Hearst reports that "1/3" it must be noted that those 400 instances aren't equally distributed, some councils log regularly; 34 instances went to only one council (Portland). Properly managed, logging is not even a sustainability or environmental issue.

As for revoking the guy's membership, we're given very little context, just his side of the story. But what little context we get makes it clear that he went off the reservation and made himself a problem by planting the ferns wherever he wanted rather than working with the camp/council. Working in the nature lodge 30 years ago and having a passion for the fern plus a member card doesn't give the guy the right to start planting an endangered species in the middle of camp. Let's think about this logically: You're in love with an endangered fern, you want to proliferate it so you collect its rare seeds, then you plan them ..... in front of the dining hall and health lodge? No. You plant them where they'll thrive.

It's one thing to work on a problem, it's another thing to make yourself a nuisance.

As for the petition, it calls Kuska a "noted environmentalist." Google him. Nada. He's a middle school science teacher and apparently a farmer with a 2013 arrest for trespassing who has a penchant for nature and birdwatching, not a noted environmentalist.

The Council was wrong, and Kuska was wrong. In the end, Kuska should be reinstated, but with the understanding that he's to either stay away from the camp, or that the camp and Kuska will work together.

This is a nice article. I could not help but wonder why the Times can publish this very positive piece, though they did mention the Gay issue slightly in passing, and seldom recognize the similar large contribution of Scouting to the communities here. They certainly find the space to publicize all kinds of negative things, even though the positive is far more the norm.

If it wasn't made perfectly, crystal clear that they're loaners at the beginning of the year, lesson learned, and next year you'll make sure you do. If it was, as Schiff said, it's time for a call to the parents to the effect that you're very glad the boys had such a great time that they want to keep their neckerchiefs, but you need $7 to replace them.

Meh. He met the requirements for Life, he's going to meet the requirements for Eagle, he just took a break in between. Since your troop has no clear activity policy, he didn't do anything wrong. I wouldn't like it either, but it's better that he came back and wants to do it than that he never did.

I was looking at the Arrow of Light requirements for giggles just now, and I came up with a question regarding requirements 4 and 6, because as far as I can tell no Webelos that's joined our troop anytime lately has met them.

Req 4 requires the boy to participate in a den visit to both and troop meeting and "Boy Scout-oriented outdoor activity." For years, we've invited Webelos to our sports center lock-in. Some years, we invite them to our summer beach trip, which is in a cabin. If it were me, I wouldn't fuss over the cabin trip, but a lock-in clearly isn't an outdoor activity. No Cub leader has ever indicated the issue to us. The meeting visit is accomplished with our open house.

Req 6 requires a second, individually-oriented visit to a troop he "might like to join" by the Webelos and his parents, wherein he has a conference with the Scoutmaster. Not one Webelos has ever come back for a singular visit or had an individual conference with our Scoutmaster.

Am I reading things wrong, or is the pack fudging those two requirements? I'm a little alarmed. How do your all's packs interpret/handle these requirements?

The issue here is the nature of the requirement: "a. Prepare a budget reflecting your expected income, expenses, and savings." That is forethought/forecasting/budgeting. The log then compares his budget (expectations) with reality--thus the two-part nature of the requirement in its use of the words "budget" and "actual." If he only presented a log/statements, then he didn't do any budgeting. The point is instilling financial responsibility--looking at his statement once a month and saying "gee, I'm out of money" or "golly, I've got $500" isn't budgeting.

I'd recommend a sketchbook from your local art supply store; that's what I use.

You stick a man in a uniform and suddenly he becomes a wellspring of regulations that no one else seems to ever have heard of.

who cares what district or council thinks??? Especially with the way they have treated you.

Agreed. We haven't gone to summer camp in-council in decades. No one has ever been nasty about it, but it has come up a lot in the past few years. I simply reply that we do support the council: We go to camporees, and we go to winter camp, and we beat our FoS goal every year.

As a society we've gotten beyond the point that people can be sensible about nudity; yes, if you suggested that boys pair off you'd immediately be branded a pervert. Let them keep their modesty and risk Lyme Disease.

As for yourself, this article contains some preventative measures on page 2: http://www.motherearthnews.com/natur...#axzz2Vsj8iKvg

Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.

All of those are religions. At the time Mr. Wise's troubles began he was simply an atheist without any g/God or religion, as he has explicitly written in his testimonial (now linked above). He also saw, read, and had misgivings about the DRP, but he signed on anyway.

I had a discussion with someone from regional a few months ago, and he said that according to national, the only thing that matters is the label. If someone self identifies as an Atheist, they are not eligible. If someone with identical beliefs calls themselves something else, they are good. He says it's because so many people get hung up on the word "Atheist". So yes, it is stupid.

And people do get hung up on the word. To many people, it is a very negative word and they have a strong emotional reaction to it. When they here the word "Atheist", they think of "those Atheists" that don't believe in anything, think anyone with religion is a fool or idiot, that will take any opportunity to be obnoxious about it, etc. (While I have met in passing a couple of Atheists that can be obnoxious about it, I don't think I have ever met one that fits the "doesn't believe anything" description). So they assume that anyone that self identifies as an "Atheist" is claiming all the listeners baggage too. That's why you get all the: "I don't consider those people atheists..." kind of discussions when Duty to God is discussed (see the above WOSM link).

It may be stupid, but then again how stupid does anyone have to be to push it. You don't get honey by kicking the beehive.

 

It isn't clear from your comment what the relevance is for your mention that Trevorum is a member of the UUA. What's that all about?

It's perfectly clear from the context of the conversation: Rick claimed that Wise was in "the same position" as atheistic Unitarians as if perhaps it was his Unitarianism which caused him trouble Trevorum is a Unitarian on the national religious committee, so clearly that's not the issue. Wise's situation was unique to Wise as outlined in my reply to Rick at the top of this post.

 

@Scouter99' date=' I noted the derisive tone you employed in your use of the phrase 'you Greenbar fanboys'. Could you elaborate on what your intent was in that? Was it intended to imply that 'you Greenbar fanboys' are hypocritical for some reason? Please explain.[/quote']

It boils down to why we're here and why we're Scouters. BD put it better and more succinctly than I could, so I'll refer to him:

So the BSA currently has a black eye......You are helping this fellow blacken the other one....... give it a rest for cryin out loud.....

And take his wise lead on excusing myself from this flagellation party.

I got the "empty response" error on this post, but I can see it, so I'm assuming you all can as well.

Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.

All of those are religions. At the time Mr. Wise's troubles began he was simply an atheist without any g/God or religion, as he has explicitly written in his testimonial (now linked above). He also saw, read, and had misgivings about the DRP, but he signed on anyway.

I had a discussion with someone from regional a few months ago, and he said that according to national, the only thing that matters is the label. If someone self identifies as an Atheist, they are not eligible. If someone with identical beliefs calls themselves something else, they are good. He says it's because so many people get hung up on the word "Atheist". So yes, it is stupid.

And people do get hung up on the word. To many people, it is a very negative word and they have a strong emotional reaction to it. When they here the word "Atheist", they think of "those Atheists" that don't believe in anything, think anyone with religion is a fool or idiot, that will take any opportunity to be obnoxious about it, etc. (While I have met in passing a couple of Atheists that can be obnoxious about it, I don't think I have ever met one that fits the "doesn't believe anything" description). So they assume that anyone that self identifies as an "Atheist" is claiming all the listeners baggage too. That's why you get all the: "I don't consider those people atheists..." kind of discussions when Duty to God is discussed (see the above WOSM link).

It may be stupid, but then again how stupid does anyone have to be to push it. You don't get honey by kicking the beehive.

It isn't clear from your comment what the relevance is for your mention that Trevorum is a member of the UUA. What's that all about?

It's perfectly clear from the context of the conversation: Rick claimed that Wise was in "the same position" as atheistic Unitarians as if perhaps it was his Unitarianism which caused him trouble Trevorum is a Unitarian on the national religious committee, so clearly that's not the issue. Wise's situation was unique to Wise as outlined in my reply to Rick at the top of this post.

@Scouter99' date=' I noted the derisive tone you employed in your use of the phrase 'you Greenbar fanboys'. Could you elaborate on what your intent was in that? Was it intended to imply that 'you Greenbar fanboys' are hypocritical for some reason? Please explain.[/quote']

It boils down to why we're here and why we're Scouters. BD put it better and more succinctly than I could, so I'll refer to him:

So the BSA currently has a black eye......You are helping this fellow blacken the other one....... give it a rest for cryin out loud.....

And take his wise lead on excusing myself from this flagellation party.