sherminator505

Hmmm... "(a) female camp staff are too diverting to the scouts" Can you explain this further? I should think that they would have the Scouts' rapt attention. Shall we extend this to assert that women shouldn't be teaching boys in middle and high school? "(b) they also drive off possible male staffers (girls this age are more mature, better organized, more motivated; this means the boys suffer or get fewer opportunities to develop)." So you're saying that we should eschew what appear to be well-qualified candidates for these positions in favor of less-qualified candidates who happen to be boys, then? (This message has been edited by sherminator505)

It's not that bad. Yes, people tend to be a bit more blunt when veiled by screen names, and some of us (myself included) do engage in some "slightly exaggerated" hyperbole. We have... ...folks who seem to think that Scouting is doomed because it no longer exactly like it was in 1916. ...folks who believe that National can do no right. ...folks who aren't even Scouters telling the rest of us why we're wrong. ...folks who seize upon a point of logic and WON'T... LET... GO! ...and folks who are overly blunt to the point that they come across as bitter. But at the same time, they are probably some of the most informed Scouters you'll find anywhere. A few of them have probably forgotten more about Scouting than I have ever learned. And usually, if they aren't on an I/P thread, they will apologize if they have somehow crossed a line.

"The idea of a President Palin is enough to scare the bejeebus out of anyone. She's perfectly competent, just lacks relevant experience and has gained a poor public reputation despite her venture into reality tv." She had an excellent opportunity to gain that relevant experience; unfortunately, she left before she could get the full benefit.

Ed, Let's look at it this way. You look at fire restrictions as an occasional occurence. This is how we view forest closures.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the GOP primaries. I'll let y'all speculate as to why.

Scouting is for the boys. It is not for the adults, and it isn't even about the adults until they make it so. Is it okay for the adults to have fun working with the boys? Of course! Is Scouting a place for adults to get their egos stroked? No! What happens when adults can't get along or even maintain a healthy attitude in front of the Scouts? The Scouts decide rather quickly that there is someplace they'd rather be. Do I envy my Key 3 (or any Key 3 for that matter)? No! They have to deal with adults with powerful egos that sometimes act worse than the boys. Do I think that adult recognition is the root of these problems? No. A reasonable amount of recognition can help Scouting retain qualified, dedicated leadership. The problems rest with the individuals. Here on these threads we now see a couple of Scouters who have started a virtual food fight. No ego problems here. But from some of the posts, it is apparent that the boys were exposed to these shenanigans. It is at times like this that I wonder whether or not the boys are the mature ones! Sheesh!

"I would say burn bans are used as an excuse more than a valid reason." This is probably because you receive more rain in a month than some of us receive in a year.

"A lot of organizations started for a very good reason, BadenP, but over time some have become a lot more radical." Actually, this sentiment could apply in a number of ways. Hmmm... But really, weren't we talking about moderating in this thread?

I see a lot of comments about how Venturing is a feeble program and that having a separate venture patrol is too much for volunteers who are spread thin. Why are structural issues such as these not addressed in the 2011 Strategic Plan?

Personally, I would like to see a course for Scoutmasters and ASMs that is based in the Twenty Tools.

"Gee - if an activity is prohibited, it just must be because the BSA is afraid of litigation and the risk management folks are just going overboard, right? It's just not possible that there could be other reasons for some of the prohibitions." Of course there are! Some things were recognized early on as being either unsafe or not conducive to a healthy Scouting program. Martial arts is as good an example as any. One of the original topics for "Badges of Merit" was Master at Arms. Essentially. a Scout was expected to learn a fighting style to earn this badge. By the time that the BSA introduced the merit badge program in 1911, this badge was gone. So martial arts was never really contemplated as a component of Scouting beyond its formative stages. Still, I wonder if you have to be a bit too accepting to believe that many of the recent changes have occured for some other reason than litigation prevention. That motivation is powerful, and it has replaced common sense in most corporate decision-making processes for quite some time now.

"When and Why did BSA become short for Basic Simple Activities?" Good one, OGE. Too bad it hits a little close to the mark. This is what happens when we as a society become litigious and otherwise overly concerned. Both in and out of Scouting, kids are becoming increasingly encased in virtual bubble wrap! This concept is contradictory to what Scouting has traditionally offered and what it tries to accomplish, namely taking the Scout away from Mom and/or Dad, the computer, the video games, creature comforts, electricity, etc. and letting him see what he can really do. I understand that there are things that Scouts can't do because lawyers are involved, but we shouldn't take those caveats to mean that we have to sanitize the program to the point that the boys no longer feel challenged. When that happens, we lose boys.

It is interesting to see so many posters struggling to wrap their heads around this topic because it is new to them. I'm struggling to wrap my head around it because around these parts, Hispanics are a large segment of the population and we have never viewed atracting and retaining Hispanic youth any differently than attracting and retaining youth in general. The biggest problem I can see arising would be dealing with parents who cannot speak English well. The kids themselves are usually pretty sharp and do just fine in this regard. I would make sure to identify your bilingual ASMs and CMs, as you will be relying on these folks. Also, push the interpreter strips as a way to get the boys to think bilingually.

I don't see the similarity either, although I have found that name-calling is no substitute for a good argument (or even a poor one).

These last posts show just how diluted our use of language has become. When I talk about citizenship, I don't refer to merit badges or some requirement in some handbook. I refer to the ability to participate effectively in society by first knowing how to govern one's self according to the ideals and values of Scouting, and then being able to participate effectively in the governance of the home, the community, and the nation. This MAY be a point of emphasis at the unit level, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a priority at National if this strategic plan is any indication. Ever since the BSA declared itself to be a religious organization, its emphasis has shifted in that direction to the exclusion of some other common-sense virtues that are essential to effective citizenship, including patriotism, courage and self-reliance. In response to NJCubScouter: Yes, I'm one of those folks who feels that the BSA lost its way in 1972 and really hasn't recovered, and I don't apologize for that viewpoint. This might seem odd coming from someone who was born in 1970, but I can read and I can see how the changes made in the early 1970's continue to reverberate through the literature from that point hence. We never corrected the structural changes implemented by the "Improved Scouting Program." We revised the Boy Scout requirements to make Tommy Tenderfoot actually go camping to make Eagle so that we could feel better about ourselves. Period. We never fixed Wood Badge; in fact, we took quite a different tack, completely changed the meaning of the course, and made it an "advanced" training course that directly addresses no one but serves to pump out "fake" management theory. We then refashioned ourselves to fit more comfortably within the confines of conservatism and de-emphasized the parts of Scouting that didn't mesh with that re-fashioning. Witness the results. (This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I see one glaring problem with this document: where is the citizenship component? The word "citizens" appears once, at the end of the Designed Future Statement at the front of the document. The word "citizenship" appears once, in a bullet point under Objective III of the Youth Advocacy and Strategic Relationships pillar. In past self-descriptions of Scouting, preparation for CITIZENSHIP was a central talking point, and one of the reasons for instilling the ideals of Scouting was to help Scouts become the best CITIZENS they could be. This emphasis seems to have utterly fallen away. Why?

Actually, it was the saber-rattling back east.

Nope. That's just my area code...

Does the SM have to attend EVERY outing? That seems like a slightly irrational absolute. Granted the SM should attend MOST of the outings, otherwise he might want to re-evaluate his role in the troop leadership structure. Still, the ASMs and PLC should be well-enough trained so that things don't fall apart upon the SM's occasional absence.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I agree with the notion that moderators are necessary. I can also understand why some would be upset when a thread is closed, but you've gotta realize that the moderators have to exercise some judgment, otherwise they wouldn't be doing their jobs. I could write much more on this, but my mind seems to have been hijacked by chocolate cream pie...

What changed? More specifically, what did the Scout do differently between his advancement to Star and his attempted advancement to Life? Or how did the BOR operate differently between the Star BOR and the Life BOR? The reason I'm asking is that this is not the Scout's first experience with a BOR beyond First Class, or serving in a position of responsibility, or having to demonstrate Scout Spirit within the confines of a BOR. Something had to change to create this outcome.

I suspect that the point will be moot, once "Don't ask, don't tell" becomes "don't know, don't care." As others on this thread have already stated, this adjustment will take time.

"Quick to judge... quick to anger... slow to understand." - N. Peart

"I don't doubt Boehner's tears are genuine. He seems clearly moved and emotional. Much like many are at the end of happy hour." For some, you have to wonder when it actually ends...

Anybody remember when candidates were laughed out of presidential races for showing too much enthusiasm?