Tired_Eagle_Feathers

16 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The sentence is misleading.  Inferring a general rule.  It is the far, far exception and the outlier that proves the rule.  BSA had millions of registered adults.   I've read many, many of the IVF files and did not see what is inferred here. 

The quote was "I have reviewed information that now makes clear to me that decades ago BSA did, in at least some instances, allow individuals to return to Scouting even after credible accusations of sexual abuse."  ... It was not the policy or rule.  Any organization of millions of people will have "some instances".

It is interesting in the same 2019 letter / testimony that he advocated for creating a government run national registry that youth organizations can use to screen volunteers.  50+ years since the 1970s laws started and in 2019 there was still no effective way for youth organizations to screen volunteers. 

Thanks for that, Fred.  Certainly puts things in the light that I understood them to be all along. 

It seems clear to me that the BSA did the best it could in keeping track of harmful people.

I wonder if they still maintain such a list or have abandoned it due to potential liability? 

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Self-charter ...  Councils should not charter troops.  IMHO, troops should be chartered by immediate small groups.   Perhaps a collection of parents and volunteers. 

I've been reading about this, and evidently there is significant liability that could fall on the individual board of directors if a troop self-charters by making itself a 501c3.  In addition, the problem is that the BOD will constantly be changing as parents come and go in the troop.

But whatever we do we need to move away from counting on external charter organizations propping us up.

19 minutes ago, yknot said:

In a May 28, 2019 letter to Congress Chief Scout Executive Michael Surbaugh admitted that BSA did allow credibly accused child abusers to return to scouting.

Well what was the point of having the pervert files?!?!

7 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Occam's Razor suggests that the lawsuit was the result of the BSA failing to take appropriate action on rape and other sexual abuse reports to protect scouts from further abuse, much like the Catholic Church's own pedophile shuffling scandal.

Alleging the lawsuit is just a malicious attack by groups that include fellow scouts and scouters, but had nothing to do with the fact that 92,700 scouts were sexually abused under the auspices of the BSA, is dividing the scout "sangha" while also declining to accept the BSA's responsibility for allowing pedophiles to continue abusing. 

This just isn't complicated. Pedophilia is really bad. Covering for pedophiles is therefore also really bad. If you do it, expect people to be very angry when you get caught covering their crimes up, especially the victims. People don't really need any additional reasons to be mad at that point, pedophilia 105% covers it. Leftists definitely didn't make scouter pedophiles rape anyone, or prevent the BSA from filing police reports or proper banning all suspected pedophiles from the organization. Leftists didn't tell abused scouts not to tell their parents. You may be sincere in your belief in this attack, but the BSA was in full control of itself when it comes to dealing with pedophiles.

The BSA's karma has ripened. Looking to put the blame outside is just going to create more bad karma that's going to ripen in the future. Please don't sow more seeds of suffering.

The good news about karma ripening is that it becomes easier to move into a more meritorious direction, so let's take this opportunity to create bliss instead. The truth is out; we can do our best to help the victims and make sure that we handle any future pedophiles and their crimes right. We have no more reputation to lose. This is how we burn up any remainder of bad karma and prevent more of the same from accumulating. But it starts with not blaming others for the BSA's faults.

Both things can be true. 

There has definitely been an ongoing attempt to undermine American institutions for most of my life.  Anything that promotes patriotism and pride in America is under attack.   "Nationalism" is now a dirty word.  There are many who want to see institutions like BSA fail.  A nation full of people who do not love their country is easy to divide.

As for the child abuse, I personally think the BSA did the best it could in the times it operated.  The earliest entry in the P-list is like 1912 or so.  There were no computer databases back then - even into the 70s.  What was the best course of action for BSA back then?  They could report to the police, but often times nothing was done.  People were not as eager to believe that a "fine member of the community" could do such a thing back then.  An abuser could simply go to another town and start abusing again.  Background checks were probably relatively impossible.  I'm convinced that the BSA keeping its own database of abusers was the best course of action prior to about 1970.

Maybe sometime after that they could have relied on the government to punish and keep track of pedophiles.  But I'm not sure I would rely on that.  I wonder if BSA still keeps a database of known abusers?

Now one thing BSA should have done was institute powerful YPT policies faster.  I'm sure we all agree that YPT is fantastic and is the best way to protect Scouts.

Anyway, the reason why charter organizations are dropping Scouts is very simple: money.  It has become too financially risky to become legally associated with a youth organization today.

The solution is self-chartering.  Troops should be chartered via their councils.  We shouldn't be trying to hitch our wagons to other organizations.

The Scout Oath and Law are fantastic, and have been fantastic guidelines for decades.  They were good enough for decades, and they are good enough now.  I was having a discussion with one scout and he said something like, "Aren't we already including everybody?"  And I said, "Yes.  The Boy Scouts is one of the most inclusive organizations you will ever find.  The Scout Oath and Law pretty much guarantee it."

34 minutes ago, nolesrule said:

why people afraid of having conversations about differences?

I don't think anyone is afraid of having conversations about differences.  What people have a problem with is when the differences start being used as metrics for enforced equality of outcomes, or as a bludgeon to make one group feel like they owe another group something, or that others are required to participate in whatever makes them different.

Not all of the Society merit badge is terrible.  Talking about bullying, for example, is great.  Nobody should be made to feel excluded in Scouting for any reason (within reason).   Being an "upstander" to be a champion for people is great.  Talking about ethical leadership is also fantastic.  Making sure that all scouts are given an opportunity to provide input is great.

The stuff that skates off into "identity" is suspect, to me.  Too many people today want to "identify" as bizarro things that in the past would have people smiling and backing away whereas today people are expected to effectively be active participants.  Of course this is probably just more word co-opting.  There are many "identities" that of course are normal and fine and people should be ambivalent about them at worst.  As long as you keep it to yourself, most people aren't going to care about what religion or political alignment you identify as, for example.

17 hours ago, KublaiKen said:

Based on conversations I've had with Scouts and their parents, I don't see a "situation" or have any reason to believe it isn't being counseled (not taught) properly.

Based on the conversations I've had with Scouts, and listening in to others while they were taking the merit badge, there is a situation, and the kids know it.  In fact, given the often-cagey responses from the adults concerning the badge, they know it, too.  Most worrisome is that people are clearly afraid to talk about it openly.

Quote

many simply believe the content is political.

Because it is.  Not only that, it is, in my estimation, immoral.

The merit bade speaks to "equity" and "equality".  In the context of organizations with DEI efforts, these always, always end up being punitive in nature.  The left has done a fantastic job of co-opting and conflating these words.  Who could be against equity?  Who could be against equality?  But what is really meant by these terms in practice is enforced equality.  Inevitably.  And that always comes at someone's expense.

What most people used to have in mind when you talked about equality was equality of opportunity within one's means.  Making the most out of the cards life has dealt you.  But today, the left has redefined the terms to mean equality of outcomes and equality of opportunity regardless of means.

This is literally Marxism - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

So, if you don't achieve as well as someone else, well, we'll put the thumb on the scale so you appear to do as well as someone who did better.  Clearly you need the help, so we will take from others to give it to you.

Or they will go after equality of opportunity.  Not everyone starts out with the same means, so we'll take from those with the ability, and give to those who have needs.

This is inherently leftist political ideology being pushed in a merit badge.

I could go on with more, but again, if you know this, you know it, and if you don't, nothing I say is going to convince you.  You wont' ever get it because you agree with this stuff.

The best way to counter this stuff is to ask the scouts if at the end of summer camp the "equal" thing to do would be divvy up all the merit badges amongst all the scouts.  Or if everyone's service hours should get divvied up amongst all the scouts - even those who didn't do any service work.  Or if scouts who join late should just be given some ranks and merit badges so that they start off more "equal" with everyone else their age, without having worked for them.  They get the idea pretty quick.

I continue to be shocked and dismayed that this kind of thing has infiltrated the Boy Scouts of America of all places.  This is the absolute last place I thought this kind of thing would creep in.  It needs to be resisted.

4 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Dude, not helpful. 

The best way to help with this situation is become a merit badge counselor for this badge so you can make sure it gets taught properly.

14 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

In what way??

If you know, you know.  If you don't, you won't.

Our kids are wise to it.

This whole thing reminds me of how strange it is that troops need a charter organization at all.

They should be able to self-charter and just rent a meeting location.

Traditionally and historically, churches have been exempt from certain kinds of taxes.  

Girl Scouts is also suffering declining numbers.

It's a shame.

I personally don't have a problem with the fees. 

BSA has been hammered with this lawsuit.  It costs money to run BSA.  Everything is more expensive these days.  Scouting is in decline, so the burdens will fall to fewer to pay. 

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

We do not let youth design the program of Scouting.  I'll refer you to the aims and methods...

 

I don't know what this means.

18 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Agreed, but Scouting is more than just the activities.

Of course, but that is the bulk of it, and what matters to the kids.

I want to clarify here:  I am not saying there are not differences between boys and girls.  Of course there are.

What I'm saying is that with regards to activities in scouting, there is no difference between boys and girls.

In other words, there is nothing in the Scout Oath or Law or scouting activities like hiking, camping, watersports, etc. where your sex makes any significant difference.

There is essentially one prerequisite for participating in scouting:  enjoying outdoors activities.  If you enjoy outdoor activities, then scouting will appeal to you, regardless of your sex.

4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

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.

I disagree with the idea the idea that "only boys are interested in action and adventure" and "girls are interested in planning menus".

I think the "action and adventure" available through Scouting appeals to boys and girls equally.  I also disagree with the assessment that logistical planning is not in the boys' "wheelhouse".

I can't think of a single Scouting activity that wouldn't appeal to outdoor-oriented girls the same way it appeals to outdoor-oriented boys.

I do not think this is an issue in mixed-gender Scouting.

Quote

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. 

I fully expected Scouting to go co-ed when they started having girl troops.

On one hand, I believe that we are in an era of equality now and not only do girls deserve to have the same opportunities as boys in Scouting but boys need to learn how to function in a co-ed environment of equality.  More women than men go to college now and so most men will be working for women in the near future.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no denying that boys will behave differently in co-ed environments.  Boys will "macho up" when there is the possibility of looking weak in front of girls.  It will change the dynamic of a boys-only environment.  But, it is what it is.

But the biggest concern I have is that you are going to 100%, absolutely, positively, without a doubt have boy and girl scouts having sex, mostly likely on overnight functions.  You can take that to the bank.  If you thought scout-on-scout sex acts were scandalous before, just wait until pregnancy is an outcome.  Especially with the possibility of abortion going down the tubes in many places.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Is this "woke"?  I think, scouters who are attempting to be "helpful" and believe in the program, should be working to get more communities involved in scouting.  I think our country would be much better off if we double or triple the number of scouts from minority backgrounds in the program.  I live right next to a urban area ... I would love to see thousands of youth in scouts, getting exposure to the outdoors, performing service projects in their community, etc.  I don't see this as a bad goal at all.

I think any "goals" that relate to group identity are woke and unnecessary.   Scouting is Scouting.  It appeals and us open to everyone from all races, creeds, and nationalities who believe in the ideals of scouting.  As long as this attitude is preserved, then the chips fall where they may, and everyone who wants to participate can.

Quote

Now, how you obtain that goal is a risk.

That's not a risk, that's pretty much a certainty.  DEI always ends up chasing arbitrary target numbers, and they will monkey with things however they can get away with to then achieve them. 

Maybe, DEI will be content with outreach programs to advertise Scouting to more people.  But I'm very skeptical.  Didn't even have DEI like but a year and already they have an Eagle-required merit badge for it.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Could you add in "Antifa" into your comments?  I almost have OAN BINGO! 

The DEI & Citizenship in Society MB are very mild.  They are not on any sort of fringe of political stances.  The early release of C in S did have some concerning content, but that was removed. So far, I see no impact to day to day operations of any unit from DEI.  The biggest impact I have seen is council JTE which was actually created back in 2019 (prior to DEI).

I have no idea what OAN is nor do I see what "Antifa" has to do with this.

I agree, the current incarnation of the new merit badge is fairly tame.  But there is a saying: "Once you let the nose of the camel in your tent before you know it you have the whole camel in your tent."

All of this woke stuff was pretty tame years ago and look where we are now.

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

My hope is National's motivation to appear progressive will be diluted by the common sense of the volunteers.

I've actually considered becoming a merit badge councillor for this badge just so I could make sure it gets taught properly.

35 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Lots of assumptions on how the BSA will end up doing it. I have been in other orgs who didn’t do it how you describe. 

Time will tell.  Every DEI I've ever encountered does these things.  It's why they exist.  I just can't believe this woke stuff has penetrated the Boy Scouts of America of all things.

47 minutes ago, qwazse said:

If your scouts agree that your troop would be best represented at Jambo by a scout with little means, then yes the equitable thing would be to support him/her. The expectation should be that that scout would more likely return with enthusiasm and novel ideas to benefit his/her fellow scouts.

More importantly, if one of us only had $500 to spare for jambo, and there was a potential ASM who was qualified but limited in funds to go, equity dictates we give what we have to make sure our scouts are tended to by who we trust the most.

Let's not conflate charity - voluntary giving, with forced giving.  Our troop has funds to help kids who may be financially unable to do things.  This is totally different from the aims of DEI as I have seen it elsewhere where the objective always ends up enforced equality that comes at an involuntary cost to others, and usually results in demonstrable negative effects for the non-beneficiaries (driving everyone towards mediocrity).

DEI groups always seek to justify their existence.  This means right away they start tracking numbers so they can point out inequities.  And then the follow-on is stacking the deck to make the numbers come out to however someone thinks they ought to be in the name of "equity". 

There's a saying in Japan: "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."  DEI usually ends up being the hammer.

16 minutes ago, qwazse said:

You've revised the definition of equity. Equity does, in fact, take into account that some of us came into the world with an inability to give "it the old college try." For example, when I was getting manipulated by my school district to pay more taxes than my neighbors did because I had just arrived and lacked the privilege of a lower home assessment due to a rising market, I could ask for an equitable decision in spite of the letter of law that was written in favor of long-time residents of the district. The judge saved me thousands.

Equity lets someone who has come lately to the game take their swing. Not merely because seasoned players might have an unfair edge, but because the newbie might bring something to bat that could be a blessing to us all who love free markets.

Like I said, "If your idea of equity/equality means that everyone has the right to participate in something and give it the old "college try" with whatever they came to the game with, then sure, that's my idea of equity/equality."

It's your responsibility and (and your parents, and their parents before them) to build up generational excellence to gain the advantages thereby.  It's not anyone else's responsibility to take a handicap to make someone else equal in the starting lineup.  The whole point of building generational excellence is to make sure that you get a head start in the race.

I have no problem if someone who has come lately to the game gets to take their swing.  That's equity.  What's not equity is giving an advantage to them or handicapping everyone else to try and force some equal starting line.

Everyone gets dealt a hand of cards in life.  Equity means having an equal opportunity to use what you've got the best you can.  It doesn't mean giving everyone the same deal of cards.