walk in the woods

I'm curious to hear folks definition of millenials now. The one I most often hear is for people born roughly between 1980 and 2005. So early millennials would be parents to cub scouts and potentially young boy scouts today using that definition.

Maybe, but I think our outdoor model doesn't fit with the National Forest Service use model. BWCA parties are limited to 4 canoes with no more than 9 people, parties can't follow each other, etc. So each patrol in a troop could be a travel party, assuming you can get two leaders for each patrol and no more 7 youth. Our travel group was split 6/3 and frankly I'd have preferred a smaller group. I was day- hiking down at Mammoth Cave a few years ago in their backcountry side. The camp sites were limited to two tents and 4 or 6 people, I don't recall the exact limitations. The sites I visited would have been crowded with that population. The model doesn't bode well for even mid-sized units.

Another take on millennial participation, http://blogs.voanews.com/tedlandphairsamerica/2012/08/30/join-the-club-please/. I thought the short paragraph about individualism was interesting. To LeCastor's questions, how did we deal with the dynamic? Well, frankly, we failed.

We aren't alone in this, but that's been said here before. My experience with young millennials is they turn out well for short-term (i.e. 1-day or few day) service projects. There's a group in my office that puts together a couple of them every year. It's a social experience and a feel good experience. Turning out for a long-term commitment kind of thing doesn't seem to be in the cards for them. One of the money lines from this article, to me anyway: ~~Most millennials or Gen Xers, however, would never dream of joining a club that seems geared toward their grandparents. That’s the general crisis the Kiwanis Club and other fraternal or service organizations are facing.

These make me smile. Whenever any of my boys asked why they needed to learn to start fires or cook or tie knots my default answer was "chicks dig it."

It's not a loss of moral compass Stosh, just a recalibration.

I should also add to my earlier post of the things we failed at after 9/11 is the whole torture, extreme extradition, black site, CIA stuff. I think Sen. Feinstein had purely political reasons for releasing her report but it was needed and the government doesn't have permission to torture in my name. The fact that unconstitutional surveillance been going on since the 60s certainly doesn't justify our government spying on us without authorization from the courts. In fact it makes it all the more wrong. And the fact the government felt it necessary to codify their actions in law proves, at least to me, that they knew it was wrong all along. But hey, why let a good crisis go to waste when instead more control and power can be exercised while the sheep are cowering in the corner. Crime is an interesting thought here because what is crime? It's an action by one person that denies a second their essential liberties. The victim of a crime doesn't voluntarily give up their liberty, it is taken from them. Why isn't it a crime when the government does the same thing? For me the "essential" liberties in the quote is easy to define, they're all essential. With each liberty surrendered we draw a step closer to the point of no return. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It passes through serfdom along the way.

I had to think about this based on the way you phrased the question. It's easier to point out where we went wrong with the internal surveillance stuff in the USA Patriot Act, warrant-less wire tapping, NSA data collection on citizens, etc. What's worse to me is the number of citizens who said things like "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about." To me that's tantamount to "show me your papers." We let, and to a lesser extent continue to let, fear control our actions. ~~Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. The biggest thing we did right was getting everything running again, markets were up and running in a week, air travel, people going to jobs, etc. I think you can argue about the relative success of the OEF/OIF. I have no issues with putting troops on the ground in OEF, we can argue about OIF. I had just returned from the Gulf when one of Sadam's pilots put two Exocets into the side of the USS Stark so I don't have much sympathy for him. The mistake the U.S. makes with these kinds of operations today, and probably since VN, is we go into them thinking about an exit strategy instead of going into these conflicts thinking about destroying our enemy. I think approaching armed conflict thinking about exit strategies makes it way too easy to commit troops to bad situations.

I was just going to comment on the irony of France arresting people for speech the week after they declared that free speech is so important but the quote was just seredipitous timing. There was an AP story yesterday that justified the anti-semetic laws in France on the history of WWII. That's all well and good but ultimately the people of France in this case, and in all western democracies in general, are choosing winners and losers in the regulated speech market place. That may be ok as well, but, when anti-semetic speech is outlawed and anti-Islamic speech is celebrated, one can see how 10% of the population might be angry. That in no way justifies the response. Interestingly, at least to me, there was another story about a conservative MP in London calling for government access to telecom records. It sounded similar to me to what our friends at the NSA are currently doing. I'd be interested to hear thoughts from our friends in the UK. Regardless, our reaction to these kinds of attacks are the greatest indicator of the strength of our democracies and adherence to our values. We failed in the US after 9/11 and it appears our friends in France are traversing the same path (or maybe we're following them, hard to tell these days).

Well, in general I agree that this is a bit of a straw man argument but it's not totally without merit. The administration at Duke accepts Federal Student Aid I suspect. So if they are accepting money from the US Treasury are they then an agent of the US Government distributing funds on their behalf? Might be an interesting case.

Related to freedom is responsibility. It will be interesting to see if any of the survivor's estates pursue civil action against Charlie Hebdo once the dust has settled. I think the concept in the U.S. is that speech that endangers others isn't covered by a first amendment argument (shouting fire in a crowded theater). I wonder if some might make the argument that publishing the cartoons endangered the victims, including the police and maybe the civilians in the deli.

Then again, the 2013 Jamboree is over. So, while there was a lead up to it and it had a life for 10 days or so in 2013, it no longer exists. Since it no longer exists it can't be half way from anything can it?

Eagles are not required to hold an EBOR. SMs are not required for a troop to go camping. If your SM can't make that particular weekend the correct answer is to say "No problem, I'll lead this outing."

If your district has a roundtable, attend. Network with other Cub Leaders. You might find a pack that would be willing to host you at their PWD/B&G. At a minimum you can get ideas on what's next, what's available and where to go from them.

SMM, I generally agree with both of your posts. Your most recent post would be better, IMHO, if in the second paragraph you stopped at "those young ladies should be talked to and dealt with." But, you went on in that paragraph to be sure to put down boys even though it had nothing to do with the subject of the paragraph. Then in the last paragraph, rather than just stop at boys should behave themselves, which they should, you jumped to a extreme position about burkas and separate facilities. Those items were never in the conversation. Seems to me the right answer is scouts should behave like scouts, regardless of gender, and should be disciplined when out of line. There, no need for gender stereotypes at all.

AND we should address the girl's actual behaviors when they stir things up intentionally rather than blaming boys for basically being who they are......

I think the OP is on the right track but not thinking big enough. First let's eliminate the age overlap between Boy Scouts and Venturing. Then we should move the Star, Life and Eagle ranks into Venturing as a track in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th level of recognition. All the merit badges would move into Venturing as well. No need for them in Boy Scouts if they are part of Venturing. Then, make a set of requirements for Venturing 1 level that is equivalent to T21. That way girls,or boys that weren't interesting in Cubs or Boy Scouts, could join Venturing, do a proof of skills for the V1 rank and earn Eagle in Venturing if they chose. Or Venturers could choose other recognition paths or ignore them all together. Venturing Crews could still do everything they do today, SLE would be optional for those that choose to pursue them. This would in turn allow us to map T21 to 11, 12, and 13 year old boys, allowing the hard core outdoors guys to enjoy three years with young men building those skills. Having the year to work on each rank makes an easier transition from the Cub Program to Boy Scouts (WIII+) to the Venturing Program. It allows parents longer to linger before they let their sons "venture" out more. Venturers could serve associated troops as SPLs and officers much like we use Boy Scouts as Den Chiefs. I think this idea solves many of the program problems often raised on the forum: 1. No FCFY because it's now FC3Ys. T21 requirements can become sequential ranks with in depth instruction and skill proof. FC once again becomes the highest rank in Boy Scouts. 2. Summer camps can be just for fun at the Boy scout level. Camp, Canoe, Swim, Hike, do patrol activities, and whatever age appropriate activities are designed for Jr. high boys. Since the camps will have fewer Boy Scouts to serve they can open up to Venturing Crews a few weeks each summer for MB/adventure work as well. 3. Eliminating the age overlap eliminates all the carping about Crews stealing scouts, etc. Using Venturers as Den Chief kind of role eliminates the complaint about stealing leadership. 4. This plan opens a path to Eagle for girls without opening Boy scouts to girls. If the Cub Scout Adventures program works it might be the new model for T21 advancement. I'm sure there are some bugs to work out but we have big issues, and lots of complaints about the program. Let's propose some big solutions.

I think one can forgive but that doesn't imply restoration of trust. Trust like respect is earned through repetitive successful encounters. Or, as we used to say in the Navy, One Aw S**t erases 10 Atta Boys.

441: I think I'm with you. If someone uses a phrase like "great spirit of the wind" because it has some actual spiritual context to the person or their religion then that's fine. I don't have to believe and it won't have any spiritual meaning to me but that's all good. If people are using the phrase because it's cool to make something sound "indian" then it's not so fine. I seem to recall from earlier posts that you are a youth member so take this for what it's worth from an old guy. You will find over your scouting career there are a lot more people willing to blast whatever effort you put into something than are willing to step up and actually do something. In my experience in scouting this is particularly true when it comes to Scout's Own services. If you are a Christian whatever you do will be wrong so be true to yourself first. Those that want to find offense will and when they do you can ask them to put together the next Scout's own. You won't get any takers.

BEGINNING If I was going to point the finger of blame, or attempt to find the root cause, I supposed I'd say something like we never actually listen to each other. This goes beyond just active listening. The listener must also validate the concerns of the speaker rather than consciously attempting to invalidate those concerns. By attacking the other we can comfortably hold firm to our own hard positions. By surrounding ourselves with the like-minded we find strength in the mob. I would argue part of what challenges our society and the BSA is there's limited shared vision of what the future actually looks like. And on the rare occasion that there is a shared vision of outcome, the discussion of the method to get there devolves quickly. It devolves because compromise is only possible if everybody in the decision process is willing to give up some of their hard positions. GOTO BEGINNING

I was told by our county food pantry that for every $1 donation received they can purchase $6 of food through the local food bank. This was a few years back but I suspect that's probably still true. Not to mention they can purchase what they need at that particular moment.

Not sure why you are calling me the name of a beef pasta dish though. Odd.