elitts

18 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

If I remember correctly the initial question was concerning a kid doing swimming requirements in a backyard pool, and the answer is simple, yes.  As far as when alternate requirements may be used, it is not based on numbers, opinions, or even rarity.  It is covered in the Advancement Guide, which does an excellent job in explaining the process.

If the pool is 25' long in one dimension, you could use it for the 2nd class requirement, but not for the 1st class requirement.

For First Class, the standard backyard pool just isn't going to be sufficient since they have to past the BSA Swimmer Test.  Please see this excerpt from the BSA Swimming Classification:

Quote

The swimmer must be able to cover distance with a strong, confident stroke. The 75 yards is not the expected upper limit of the swimmer’s ability. The distance should be covered in a manner that indicates sufficient skill and stamina for the swimmer to continue to swim for greater distances. Strokes repeatedly interrupted and restarted are not sufficient.

If you are actually trying to verify a scout's ability to pass this test, stopping to turn around and then shove off again 9+ times (in a standard backyard pool) just isn't going to show you what you'd need to see to know that the scout has sufficient skill and stamina to swim for greater distances.

11 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

Whatever we think about the BSA rules, their language is unusually clear for BSA  - "required,"  not "preferred."

 

Yes, that word is clear.  I don't think anyone is arguing about whether or not they want 2 registered leaders at any Scouting activity.  Unfortunately, that one point of clarity doesn't answer the whole question.

We still need to know what a "Scouting activity" is.  Is "Summer Camp" the activity?  Is gathering wood in the forest an activity?  What about fetching water?  What about hiking from the base camp to the mess hall?  If hiking from the base camp to the mess hall is an activity, what about hiking to the bathhouse?  If hiking to the bathhouse isn't an activity, how about taking a short walk to clear your head?  How far can you travel before that walk turns into a hike?

Then once we know what constitutes a "Scouting activity" is, we still need to know what they mean by "at".  When my son is in class, he's "at school".  When he's eating lunch in the cafeteria, he's "at school".  When he's at football practice in the stadium, he's still "at school".  So if a troop meeting is going on upstairs and one of the only two adults is downstairs is that adult still "at" the meeting?  What about when the meeting breaks into patrols an one group goes outside, one goes to the basement and one stays in the main room; do we still need two adults or 6?

I mean, there are actually people out there who think "2 Deep Leadership" means "No scout should ever be out of the sight of two adults unless they are in the bathroom or their tent".

13 minutes ago, David CO said:

Schools don't say preference.  The most common word used by schools is expectation.  Our expectation is...

I don't agree that it is never going to happen.  Most of the time, students and scouts will rise up to meet the expectations.  So let's not set the bar too low.  We can have consequences for those who don't meet the expectations.  

If you find a standard sized school that manages to go a whole school year with 100% student attendance and attentiveness where no one ever got upset with anyone else, I think you'll find you are in the Twilight Zone (or possible on the planet Camazotz).

On 3/3/2020 at 9:56 PM, TAHAWK said:

At present, BSA might say: "Two or more registered adults must attend each Scout activity, such as a camp-out or meeting.  It is preferred, but not required, that no group of Scouts go off separately, beyond sight or sound, with less than two registered adults. "

 

Personally, I think at this point the "unofficial" BSA position is: "Can't we just have Cub Scouts (and its rules and risk profile) run from age 7 - 17?"

I mean, stating that "preference" is about as useful as a school saying "We'd prefer that every single student be in class and alert every day, diligently complete and turn in every assignment on time and get along with the rest of the students in perfect harmony".  Yeah, that'd be nice, but it's also never going to happen, so why even pretend that's the goal?

Beyond that, my take is that I'm going to have to treat Scouting Magazine articles and Bryan on Scouting posts the same way I treat instructions on rules that I get from any other Scouter or Council staff or volunteer.  ie: "Either show me where it's published in the official guidelines or manuals or stop talking to me about it."  The BSA has clearly shown it's capable of publishing official FAQs since there are several on their website; so if that explanation of "Two Deep Leadership" isn't on the Youth Protection page, I can only assume it's not really the official party line.

Quote

how do you allow them to hike while being in charge, but still fulfill the YP rules?

Hiking isn't a high risk activity in most circumstances and even the BSA thought so until the lawyers got involved.  As long as the adults in camp are within a reasonable distance/time given the most likely injuries, I think "2 Deep" is covered.  This of course means the acceptable distance will vary depending on the functionality of radios or cell phones.  If it's a longer hike or hilly enough that communication isn't feasible, I think having the adults trail along a mile or two back isn't any big problem.

1 hour ago, David CO said:

This was a big problem in BSA.  Executives were using the YP policy as an excuse to purge their councils of any opposition.  This is one of the reasons I would be opposed to having a non-retaliation policy that applies to unit scouters.  It would give SE's one more tool to silence and remove unit scouters.

I often wonder if national opposed the public disclosure of the ineligibility files because it would reveal the extent of child molestation in scouting.  They might have opposed disclosure because they didn't want anyone to know how many good unit scouters have been placed in the ineligible file simply because they voiced dissent in the council.  My guess is there are more good scouters in the ineligible file than bad ones.

I have no objection to those who advocate for non-retaliation policies within their Chartered Organizations. This should be a local issue.

It's not very often I agree with David, but I think this comment is on the money.  I can't say that I have much experience with council level political infighting, but I've certainly seen it in plenty of other organizations.  While retaliation for YP reporting certainly isn't something that should be tolerated, giving organization leaders with such closely held inner workings (and an absence of effective oversight) as a local council a simple "one button push" method of ejecting someone is always risky and easy to abuse.  The methods of retaliation are already considered violations of the "Scouter Code of Conduct" under item #5:

Quote

 

5.  I will respect and abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA policies, and BSA-provided training, including but not limited to those relating to:

• Unauthorized fundraising activities
• Advocacy on social and political issues, including prohibited use of the BSA uniform and brand
• Bullying, hazing, harassment, and unlawful discrimination of any kind

 

If someone is being retaliated against, this provides sufficient justification for that person's removal.  There isn't any need to add additional (more highly charged) language that says essentially the same thing.

On 7/12/2020 at 2:32 PM, John-in-KC said:

The families are required to release the council from COVID liability as an inherent risk. 

If this is National policy, I’m out of here. 

https://michiganscouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Youth-Waiver.pdf

 

Why would this bother you?  You know COVID is a risk anytime you leave the house or bring any thing or person into your house.  Is formally waiving your right to sue BSA specifically over COVID a big deal?  I mean, if in some freak circumstance it was discovered that an infected employee in a Scout Shop was going around deliberately licking every item and it caused an outbreak, the release would likely be thrown out anyway, so what's the problem?

On 7/9/2020 at 2:13 PM, 5thGenTexan said:

My son will a Webelos this year, he is 9.  He can't swim.  I am leaning way towards him not even crossing over when Cub Scouts is finished.  I dont ever see him being able to even pass the 2nd class requirements.

Honestly, unless you are dealing with some "fear of the water" issues, learning to swim well enough to pass the 2nd class requirement shouldn't take too long.  When I was teaching lessons full time, I usually took the total beginners.  With kids that are beginners and 5-6 years old, I could get probably 3 out of 4 swimming well enough to cross the width of a 6 lane pool in a couple two week sessions.  At 9-10 years old, it's even easier because they have usually started developing enough muscle mass to swim efficiently.

19 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

Legislation never passes unanimously unless the system is rigged or it's a Communist rubber stamp parliment.  If that's your definition of acceptable (Unanimous consent) we're far down the slippery slope.

But back to your original argument that we've been generationally deficient (save the Greatest Generation), there was federal civil rights legislation passed in 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1974 (covered sex, marital status and sexual orientation), 1977, 1987, 1991, 1995, 2007, et al.  To say that nothing has been done is simply wrong.  I'd also argue that to say attitudes haven't changed is also wrong.  The world's not perfect, nor will it ever be, but to deny progress is folly.

No, legislation usually doesn't pass unanimously, however there are frequently situations where pretty much everyone agrees that something needs to be addressed and they only disagree over the methods.  In the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 however, the "opposition" wasn't arguing for an alternate approach, they just plain wanted to maintain white superiority and segregation.  Senator Russell, the leader of the opposition was quoted as saying "We will resist to the bitter end,any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states".

3 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

So what generation were all those politicians that passed the civil rights legislation and voting rights legislation in the 60s?

That would be the so called "Greatest Generation".  And while it's nice that they finally passed the legislation, the telling point there was that roughly 30% of congress was opposed to it.  So essentially, 1/3 of the the US (90%+ of the Southern congressmen) thought it was not just acceptable, but a right, that people be allowed to discriminate against minorities.

2 minutes ago, David CO said:

Almost all youth movements are driven by an older generation.  Young people are very susceptible to flattery.  Always have been.  They love to be told that they are better than the generations that came before them.  Political movements, both liberal and conservative, have taken advantage of this.

The Black Lives Matter movement are telling young people that they are better than their elders.  Bernie Sander did the same thing.  It's very effective.  The kids love it.  

Well, in the context of what BLM is arguing for, I think that's measurably true.  My grandmother's generation (Silent Generation) was "accidentally" racist enough to be horrifying sometimes (and that ignores any deliberate racism).  My parent's generation (Boomers) were better, but if you look at the time period they've been "in power" they certainly haven't spent much time or effort to fix or work toward fixing the issue; but at least the Boomers started to be cognizant that there is actually a problem.  Gen X is only just now getting to the high table of politics, so we don't really know what they'll manage once they can overcome the existing political inertia.  The <40 folks (maybe even <30) are the ones that are fully engaged on the issue and energized about it, so from the viewpoint of "Who is most likely to drive us towards fixing this" standpoint, they are "the best hope".

On 7/9/2020 at 5:10 PM, David CO said:

This is factually untrue.  

I've said it before.  History has not been a timeline moving steadily from conservative to liberal.  It is more like a pendulum, moving back and forth.  

Well, I didn't actually mean "liberal" using any kind of modern political definition, that was poor word choice on my part.  I was referring to the tendency of each younger generation to lean towards new and different methods and ideas while the older generations lament the passing of their "traditional values" regardless of what they are.  I realize that's not going to hold true in every specific cultural circumstance, but overall, I think it has been the case for as long as young people have been able to actually learn about new ideas.  Obviously in cultures and time periods where information flow was constrained, this tendency is far less pronounced.

That said, I know there have been societies where there were relatively sudden shifts to more conservative beliefs, but I'm not aware of any where this change was driven by the younger generations.  All of the time periods I'm aware of where this has happened it has been an older generation forcing the issue, usually either out of a desire to retain political power or out of religious fervor. (or after a war)

16 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

4. the US is in general a freer society, in the sense of negative freedoms, at least for now, therefore more people are likely to make bad choices

             Hmm. More freedoms makes people more prone to criminality?  I suspect dictatorial governments would agree.  Though this would be under my option 1, not a separate possible conclusion.

5. The US places, or at least used to place, a higher value on personal responsibility and accountability.

            This is certainly true.  In particular, there are some Christian denominations that seem to believe forced personal responsibility and accountability are a moral duty.  Of course, this belief tends to not take into account the actual efficacy or cost of stiff punishments.

6. People in the US are more likely to flaunt government over-regulation of their personal life choices.

             This seems to be true also.  Ironically, this desire to flout authority over issues they see as "their freedoms" tends to be very narrowly focused and is often paired with a desire to stop other people from exercising their own personal life choices.  

Comparing the US to individual countries in the EU is an apples to oranges comparison even if using rates.  It would be more appropriate to compare the US to the entire EU for a legitimate comparison just on a population and diversity basis.

            We fair even worse if you include the entire EU.  I did the math and the average incarceration rate for the entire EU is 117 inmates per 100,000 population.  That makes our incarceration rate 530% higher than the EU's average rate.

17 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

7. The calmer, more obedient types stayed home.

            I dunno, given Australia's origins as a prison colony, if this were the case, you'd expect them to beat us.

8. A more heterogeneous society than many.

            The US is basically average when it comes to cultural diversity and is pretty close to most of the EU.

9. Taught for two generations with public money  that the present economic and political systems are evil so their rules are not worthy of obedience.  "Burn it down!"  

            It's ironic that a country founded by rebels now has such a strong contingent of folks who think conformity is what we should be teaching in schools.  I can't think this is really an isolated issue though, since pretty much EVERY generation in every country throughout history has thought their younger generations were full of silly liberal nonsense.

10. Societal value of youth, inexperience, and ignorance over age, experience and knowledge.  E.G. "Tear down that statute  Of Frederick Douglass  - Black Lives Matter!" 

           Again, this isn't anything unique to the US.  And the equally unreasonable other side to your argument is: "Why should we be expected to value inflexibility of thought, stagnation, technological ineptitude and entitlement over innovation, flexibility and energetic curiosity?"

11. Told for three generations that  "You deserve more free stuff, and someone else should pay for it.," a belief that such is  "justice."   

           This is exactly how I feel about anyone who feels entitled to Social Security and Medicare when it is, for all intents and purposes, "Welfare for Seniors".

 

 

On 7/3/2020 at 1:46 PM, David CO said:

The real story is crime rates are high.  We should have more sympathy for the victims of crime, and less for the perpetrators.

Crime victims get plenty of sympathy, but they aren't entitled to revenge, which is usually where ideas of this nature tend to head.  But the numbers show that one way or the other, something is drastically wrong with the way our legal system works.

The facts show that the US incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the world.  And not just by a little bit, it's an astonishing difference.  The only other country that comes close is Russia and our incarceration rate is 20% higher than theirs.  If you only look at Western countries, the next highest is Poland and we are 213% higher than them.  Of countries we actually tend to think of ourselves as being similar to, the closest is the UK and our rate is 398% higher than them.

So given that data, we have to conclude one of a few things must be true.

1. Something about the US leads to criminality at drastically higher rates than everywhere else in the world;
2. The US is just amazingly better at arresting and convicting criminals than everyone else in the world;
3. The US puts more people in jail for longer periods of time than everyone else in the world.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

On 7/3/2020 at 5:53 PM, David CO said:

I don't think we need harsher sentencing.  18 year sounds just about right for armed robbery.  The problem isn't with the sentencing.  The problem is with what happens after the sentencing.  This story is a good example.

Sympathy with the victim would require the convicted felon (his lawyers, his advocates, and everyone else who is trying to spring him from jail) to have no contact whatsoever with the victim.  No contact at all.  It is bad enough that the victims have to relive the experience for several years while the trial is going on.  They shouldn't have to go through it again 10 years later when the criminal is seeking a reduction in sentence.

Programs like this not only allow the perpetrator to contact the victims, they encourage and incentivize it.  Programs like the one in this story should be illegal.

This attitude doesn't seem very Christian.  Not much in the way of mercy or forgiveness.  18 years in prison for stealing a wallet while holding a stick even though no violence was used?

It sounds like you'd be happier in a more Muslim country.  Your ideals are right in line with some of the more extremist Islamic views on punishment.

On 7/6/2020 at 10:27 AM, Eagledad said:

 And Strangely, I've seen more scouts fail the floating part of the test than the swimming. 

Barry

That's because scrawny kids don't float well.  When I was teaching swimming lessons, I used to allow kids to scull with their hands while floating if they were the "skin and bones" type because that was the only way to keep their legs up.  Otherwise their legs would drag their whole body down.

On 7/4/2020 at 6:01 PM, karunamom3 said:

So, Is it possible for the scouts to swim in my pool for the rank requirements? I will have to take some kind of training first I imagine? (Safe swim defense?) Who needs to be here to verify the work has been done satisfactorily? Anyone else besides the SM or do we need a certified lifeguard or BSA trained individual?

Realistically, no; you can't use your pool because it's not going to be long enough to actually test their swimming ability and trying to do it this way will result in kids getting passed that should not be.  There is a big difference between being able to swim 25' (the length of an average home pool) 3 times and being able to swim 75' one time.  Swimming the 75 feet in one go takes a higher level of endurance, and that's a critical part of what you are testing for.  About all the average home pool can be effectively used for is testing floating, and working on basic skills with a non-swimmer.

18 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

The "official" organizations about us page is here: https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

The Catholic church would object to "disrupting the nuclear family" as we consider it the most basic and important unit of society. BLM affirming transgender transitioning, which the church believes is harmful. 

Not sure about your priest, but the teachings of the Catholic church are clearly outlined in the Catechism, which can be found for free here. https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

That doesn't mean we can't make common cause with the BLM movement on areas of agreement, but it would preclude a blanket endorsement. 

I missed that "nuclear family" bit.  To my mind, that seems like the kind of line that gets thrown in because it sounds impressive, but isn't really descriptive of what someone is working for.  Kind of like how "Defund the police" actually means, "develop community response methods that don't require an armed officer whenever possible".

On 6/21/2020 at 12:00 PM, Sentinel947 said:

 The BLM group has some positions as Catholics that we cannot support in good faith, but like Scouting, where the BSA is just one element, the "official" BLM group is only part of a broader movement for racial justice.

 

I dunno.   I've reviewed their web page and I don't see anything on there my priest would object to.  I think the problem is simply that BLM's structure is just so fractured that they can't keep the people speaking out using their name on message.  That and the people getting interviewed sometimes get wrapped up in their emotions and start spouting their personal opinions instead of the organization's positions.

I find this particular issue incredibly frustrating.  I realize that a vest for a K9 dog is only of limited use, but given the fact that a fully trained police dog costs something like 15k-20k, why the heck are police departments even operating a K9 unit if they can't afford the $1400 vest?  I can't help thinking that the issue is mostly the fact that the PD knows they can go hold their hand out to the community talking about how much at risk the poor little dog is and get some do-gooder to fork over the money rather than having to pay for it themselves.

My rant aside, I have to wonder how that project got approved when you aren't supposed to do a fundraiser for an eagle project.  I mean, the fact that he gave them vests instead of cash doesn't really change the fact that his project was simply to raise money.

4 hours ago, David CO said:

You can say that with impunity, but it would probably be considered very bigoted for them to say that they wouldn't want to spend much time with you. 

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would find me absolutely intolerable to be around. 

But I want to clarify, I don't simply avoid anyone who thinks homosexuality is immoral.  If someone thinks it's wrong and decides they need to pray for the person's immortal soul, I can respect that.  We are probably too far apart culturally for us to be great pals, but that doesn't mean I'm going to treat them like a foul odor and turn up my nose and leave the area.  Where I start running into a problem with being around someone is when they follow up "I think homosexuality is immoral" with some statement about which aspects of life that person should or shouldn't be allowed to participate in.

18 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

The Boy Scouts has never been a christian centered organization.  It has always mandated an acknowledgment and duty to God. There has never been a mandated diety.  As far as the LGBTQ and transgenders,  many people do not agree or support this lifestyle and they have been labeled homophobic,  which is not a crime. 

I don't have a problem with people who think homosexuality is a sin.  I think those people are wrong and probably won't want to spend much time with them, but there are people who believe much stranger things, so there you go.  And I'd even go so far as to say that, on it's own, the belief that it's a sin probably isn't inherently homophobic.  What IS homophobic is the belief that homosexual people should be banned from activities and groups on the basis of their sexuality.   

I mean, if actively behaving in a sinful manner was made a bar to membership in the BSA we'd REALLY have a problem with keeping older kids because we'd have to be kicking out every teen engaging in pre-marital sex.  Not to mention getting rid of all the re-married Catholic adults and any adults who have a live-in significant other.

But we don't do that.  Instead we just say, "Sexuality has no place in Scouting, so as long as you leave it at home, it's not a problem".  Given that fact, the only conclusion I can come to is that the people advocating the ban of gay scouts and leaders do so NOT because it's a sin and therefore incompatible with Scouting, rather they do it because of how THEY feel when they know homosexuals are around them.

4 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

Not sure what you are referring to here. Can you provide some details about when the BSA said that Scouts don't have to follow the Scout Oath and Law?

 

While I suppose I could be wrong in this case, this type of language is usually code for: "Gay people shouldn't be allowed". (and occasionally "Christians only)

49 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

The immediate issue for councils to determine is whether they will agree to sign the bankruptcy documents and submit their council financials to the Bankruptcy Court in July.  Since one case can wipe out the assets of a single big council, I anticipate most will want to contribute to the victim's trust fund and benefit from the discharge.

I think you would be correct if they could be certain that a settlement would be reached.  But if I were a local council I'd be very concerned about the idea that by agreeing to participate, I'd be tacitly agreeing that we were part of BSA national and run the risk of a full liquidation.

If it's a "sign up without making any admission of being the same organization" it would be a little safer.

17 hours ago, awanatech said:

While there are certainly a lot a similarities, I would guess that the Catholic diocese is afforded religious protections that the BSA will not have. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison between the religious body of Catholicism and the non-profit organization of BSA.

Not when it comes to bankruptcy court.  If you were talking about civil lawsuits, you might be right, but bankruptcy court is pretty "equal opportunity".

17 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

The Vatican is a sovereign nation. It's very difficult for individuals to sue foreign countries. As far as my understanding goes, the highest in the Church the lawyers can reach is the diocese themselves, maybe the National US Bishops conference. 

True, but my understanding is that what has happened is that when particular dioceses have filed bankruptcy, the creditors have been unable to get separately held parish property or arch-diocese properties added to the mix.  I was kind of ignoring the actual Vatican.

On 5/28/2020 at 6:10 PM, SSScout said:

 

LOL!  This is just about right.  I know that to date, the most talked about camp-out in my troop was the canoe trip where we were canoeing in high (but below "Action Stage") waters on a local river.  Everything went great until after lunch.  Then we came around a bend unusually clumped together and came up on a tree crossing 85% of the river.  Three canoes went down, one got stopped on the far side of the river in flooded, but shallow area and 2 of us pull in on the near side of the river.  Police and fireman, who happened to be there frantically hunting for 4 boaters reportedly in trouble, ended up going into full bore rescue mode (rather than letting us deal with the situation) which involved several rescuers trying to swim out to the scouts hanging out patiently on a small rock outcropping in the middle of the river.  One canoe was abandoned to the river (with it's gear). 

One everyone was out, the EMTs insisted on trying to bake the scouts dry inside an ambulance instead of just letting them change clothes.  Finally the adults managed to fend off the EMTs (who were desperate to send SOMEBODY to the ER to pay for their services).  Then we had to hunt along the river for the missing canoe and found it flipped and partially submerged a half mile down on the far side.  Retrieving it involved yours truly sliding about 70' down a not quite sheer ravine with a rope, fishing the 3 duffels out, then getting the line attached so people at the top could pull it all the way back up.  End result, one lost dry-bag that my son decided not to secure to the canoe, one lost pair of glasses (Scoutmaster ignored the repeated warnings to wear a floating strap) and some poison ivy from scouting the river edge for the lost canoe.

That night, scouts were talking to their parents about the "miserable canoe trip they never wanted to do again and can we please go get ice cream";  the next week at the troop meeting it was an awesome adventure that "the annoying police and firemen interrupted when we were doing just fine on our own".

P.S. For those who might have wondered, the police and fire were originally alerted by hikers that "4 people had gone under while boating and they didn't know what happened to them".  What we found out later was that there were four kayakers who had bailed out of their boats at the same fallen tree.  They'd all been wearing PFDs and had grabbed their boats, climbed out and were (at the time all of us were being "rescued") hanging out at the nearby McDonalds waiting for someone's wife to bring the trailer.