GernBlansten

Trev, I like your Big Tent term. Got a scouting flair to it. The republicans used it well during the 90s to describe their platform. Of course, we all know what happened to that when the social conservatives controlled the tent poles! The moved the tent, right out from over me! The antonym of the Big Tent would be the exclusive private club. One with membership restrictions to keep undesirable people from joining. In my humble opinion, that is exactly what the BSA is engaging in, to their detriment. Of course they do it not like country clubs that use racial/economic status, but with traditional/moral labels. The result is the same. Now wouldn't it be silly for an exclusive private country club with declining membership to be complaining about their declining membership?

The younger generation clearly doesn't hold the animus against homosexuality that older generations do. Not many years ago, we criminalized their behavior. The pendulum is swinging. Everyday, more churches are opening their doors to homosexuals. States are recognizing their right to form legal partnerships. I believe that within my lifetime, the genetic markers that prove that homosexuality is a physical trait and not a choice will be found tearing down the remaining house of cards against them. If BSA digs in its heals against these societal changes, it will risk losing the support of the growing segment of Americans who do not share those values. BSA faced this societal change before with segregated troops, male only leadership, and co-ed programs. Each time it adapted.

I'm not. I'm a happy Progressive customer.

Well Pack212Scouter, Did the BSA lose 50% when they demanded that units not maintain racial segregation in the 70s? Did they lose 50% when they allowed women to serve as leaders in the 80s? Did they lose 50% when they formed a co-ed division called Venturing in the 90s? Did they lose 50% when they formed a division called Learning for Life that didn't require the DRP or anti-homosexual barriers? All of these changes occured because society changed, and BSA adapted. The times, they are a changin. I think that's what Mr. Mazzuca is refering to. If BSA doesn't evolve both technically and socially, it will die off.

I specifically avoided the term Liberal because it has morphed into something other than what it truly represents. Much like conservative, since most modern conservatives want nothing to do with conservation. Today, loud mouthed talk show hosts have devalued the term "liberal" to mean anti-American, communist, Satan worshiping, long haired, maggot infested, FM types. I chose Progressive to describe a group of parents who are instep with the progressions being made in our ever evolving society. These parents hold no animous for homosexuality or non-thiesm. These parents would probably not allow their children to join an organization that excludes people who they find to be just other people. Constrast with those who resist these societal changes, I really don't have label for them. Regressive doesn't fit as that would indicate reverting to a previous state. But wait, many of the anti-progressive types do want us to return to the values of generations ago. So maybe regressive is an appropriate term. Not that being labeled a regressive should have a negative feeling, it just accurately describes the attitudes.

At the risk of driving this thread straight into the Issues section, of course our membership policies keep lots of kids out of the program. Progressive parents won't enroll their kids in a program that exclude people based on religion or sexual preference. The YMCA figured this out long ago. If you really want to reach ALL kids, you need to remove the unnecessary barriers that keep large groups (even if they are in the minority) of kids from joining.

Why does it have to be a federally recognized group? Is that the measure we should hold ourselves to? Seems Mr. Mazzuca is relaying a desire to make scouting available to ALL kids. Does that mean that he will work to remove the barriers that SOME kids face in joining? I hope so. If not, what does he mean by that statement?

Minorities do not always involve race. Sometimes they include creed or physical/emotional characteristics.

Some minorities simply are not allowed to join. Perhaps he is refering to those.

Do you really think he wants to serve "ALL" kids? If he does, that would be a HUGE move. In a positive way.

When I see a girl sporting an Asian symbol, I always ask her what she thinks it means. Always something poetic or breathy. I then tell her I spent my childhood in China and that symbol means "Beef with Broccoli". What a way to get a reaction.

My son is Type1 diabetic. Getting him to wear any type of Medic Alert is futile. I've threaten to have it tattooed to his left wrist. He called my bluff. So I went down to the local tat shoppe and asked them. They said they wouldn't do it, but others might. Seems in Colorado, with parental consent you can get a tat at 14. So I decided to order a custom temporary tat online with the medic alert emblem. Had to order 1000 of them. They last about a week. He wears them when I demand he puts one on. But if I don't, they just fade away. I might sell the remainder on Ebay.

What is in a name? I remember when I became an adult leader, I heard the term WoodBadge thrown around at meetings, it didn't shake me to the bone or instill some sense of authority by the speaker. I really didn't care. Beads? Bolos? Weird pink necker. Just looked like silly uniform bling. Not until I started to read and understand the history of WoodBadge that it started to set in that these adults had actually taken advanced, nationally developed leadership training. They had stepped beyond the basic training I had and really invested in the program. Had they called it National Adult Leadership Training, a newbie like me might have instantly bowed to their superiority in all things scouting. I too agree that the local name BigHorn for my son is irrelevant. He did it. Enjoyed it. Will probably staff it next summer. But the name is irrelevant to him. I like the knowledge that the program used the national syllabus, not some home grown one.

We did a similar trip last spring to prepare for Philmont. It is hard and logistics can be difficult. But if they are willing to plan it, that's exactly what we want these youth to do. What specifically were the ASMs concerns?

I don't have a problem with tattoos, but I've told my kids that many people think those who get them probably don't have much respect for their own bodies so why should they have any respect for them. Even if I wanted to get one, it would probably have to be instructional. DNR across my chest. Or a meaningful traffic sign on my derriere.

Jules: You know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in France? A Royale with cheese. You know why they call it that? Brett: The metric system? Jules: Check out the big brain on Brett! (Pulp Fiction, 1994) I just love that movie! But when you walk into a McDonald's, you expect to be able to order a quarter pounder. Its a national chain. No local options. Sounds like all the councils remain true to the NYLT syllabus, just relabel the package. Doesn't make much sense to me. If I go into a McDonald's and look up at the menu and don't see the Quarter Pounder but see the Royale with Cheese, then go to another and see the Boise Big Boy, I might get confused when I just wanted a Quarter Pounder. What national needs to come up with is some catchy label for the course that lends itself to great patches the councils can bling out. NYLT is kinda dull. Need something with more pizazz and mystique.

Since I work in aerospace, I get overrun with acronyms in daily life. They grow old and only those in the know actually understand you when you talk in them. If its OK and preferable for councils to relabel their NYLT training to some catchy, locally traditional moniker, why not also allow them to relabel Woodbadge? Perhaps national should go out and hire some marketing firm to relabel NYLT to something catchy that every council can use. Twigbadge? PulpBadge? Maybe PulpNonFiction?

Our council calls our NYLT training BigHorn. For years, I didn't connect BigHorn to NYLT. Those in the know, knew what it meant, but for a green ASM, it wasn't apparent. Now I think they advertise it as BigHorn-NYLT and if you go on their website, it says its NYLT all over the place. But for anyone outside our council, saying you went to or staffed BigHorn has no meaning to them.

There are many ethical people who work for large corporations. But those people only carry out the orders from the top. Its the ones at the top who face untold pressures to turn a buck and may stray away from helping his fellow man or environment. Profit is a seductive siren that has driven the best of intentions askew. Regulations and penalties are really our only device to keep them on the straight and narrow.

The little faith we have in big corporations is warranted. Think Enron, Exxon Valdez, any of the Superfund mining sites. Corporations don't have morals or souls. They are legal entities run by largely anonymous people who's primary interests are not in environmental protection or stewardship, but in profit making. What protection is followed is done so at the threat of regulation and litigation.

Well, being an absentee scout is OK because those are the rules we must live with. I don't like it either, but I'm not going to lower my principles and knowingly violate those rules because they make me feel better. It is what it is. We will all have those types of scouts now and again and the challenges that come with that. How we deal with it may be different. Some have suggested enhancing your program to engage these scouts, others have suggested requesting them to become more active through special projects. I've suggested a slight rule change that would short circuit most of these problems, but I'm not inclined to pursue it further than planting the seed in the minds of the forum readers. Its over. Start thinking about the next hatchling who might fall into this trap. Work actively to avoid it well before it becomes an issue. But if it does, take solace in knowing that this stuff happens, and you've done your best to avoid it.

I think the best programs have a mix of young Eagles and balding ones. It means the program has sufficient support and activity to enable a GungHo scout to get it early, yet has something to keep the scouts around until they age out.

Our Eagles do not advance in groups because their 18th birthdays do not naturally form groups. Most of our scouts are advancing within weeks of their deadline. Good program or bad?

uz2b, Now your not cursing the darkness. I like your ideas, there's no reason you couldn't suggest to any scout that they do just that, but I don't like adding those requirements to the rank. The elegance of my change is it isn't adding to the requirements, its just changing the time-line that they must be completed by. This keeps all eagles candidates past and present level and still accomplishes what we really want, to keep the scout engaged throughout his path from scout to Eagle. Or at least reengages him at the end of his career.

Certainly neal. Some kids would game the system and engineer their POR responsibilities to only include the final 6 months of their scouting careers. However, that unintended situation is still far better than the current one. That requirement as written by me would also not preclude a scout from being in a POR for his entire scouting career.