sherminator505

For some time now, I have been musing with the idea of joining NESA. The big problem I have with the idea is that it seems like a paid five-year subscription to NESA's magazine and not much else. Now I know that in theory NESA can do some very worthwhile things, but I haven't seen it in practice. What do you old Eagles out there think?

Is it a rank or is it an award? Gee, I guess it depends on what book you're looking at and how old it is. I was a Scout in the 1980's when we had skill awards (OGE refers to this as "the dark time"). When I first joined, all of the "ranks" were listed in the Boy Scout Handbook as "progress awards." Then they changed the books to make them all "ranks" again. It seems like the two terms are *almost* interchangeable, if history is any guide.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

BDPT00- Let's look at your post: "I see this as much ado about nothing. There are requirements for entry into the OA. Some people are excluded, and murderers don't happen to be among them, by the way. But there are others who are. I happen to like things as they are. Just thought I'd throw in a vote (opinion)." By pointing out that murderers are not excluded from OA membership, and that you happen to like things the way they are, you are indeed indicating a membership preference to murderers over Venturing youth.

I agree with the idea of killing the epaulets. They really don't serve a purpose, as the insignia on the shirt should give an accurate indication of the wearer's position in Scouting.

I see you sensed my presence...

So you agree with the proposition that murderers have more business in OA than Venturing youth, then?

Would I begrudge an 18yo ASM wearing his newly-earned Eagle? No. Would I think it looked out of place on a leader's uniform? Yes, but I'd probably bite my tongue. Would I begrudge a 40yo Scouter wearing his long-since-earned Eagle? Probably not, but if I were a friend I would pull him aside and gently tell him how silly and out of place it looked.

To BrotherhoodWWW, Welcome to the discussion! For my part, I won't call you names or be disrespectful. But I will not hesitate to challenge your thinking, as that would make this thread boring. You say in your post that you don't see the benefit to OA being coed at the youth level. Fair enough. I will agree with you to the point that it wouldn't make a difference one way or t'other. I will also agree with your proposition that having elections to OA shouldn't be about getting/recognizing camp staff. John might disagree with me on that point, but to my mind (at least with regard to my Scouting experience) those two aspects are and should be decoupled. Now I do think that your opposition to making OA coed is clouding your mind to what I believe is the larger issue here, namely the recognition of Venturing as the senior youth program of Scouting. When we speak of the Order as "Scouting's National Honor Society," it evokes a much larger image than what is currently practiced. As an organization we have created Venturing to encompass what we perceive as the best of the Senior Scouting and Exploring programs before it, with a decidedly outdoor emphasis. Now some of us seem to be perfectly willing to relegate it to a second-class status after only a dozen years of existence and convince ourselves it's not "real Scouting." Why? Because it's different? Because it's coed? Because it's not as grounded in the straitjacket of tradition as "real Scouting?" When you get right down to it, are any of those reasons valid? I feel that this change would benefit both the Order and Venturing. It would enhance the Order's standing as a force for fostering camping and service both in Venturing and traditional Boy Scouting, and it would expand the youth leadership pool in districts and councils by allowing senior youth leadership more opportunities to meet, train, communicate and grow. It would also enhance Venturing's visibility within the Scouting movement and encourage its growth and development. As for your statement that Venturing isn't experiencing "exponential growth," I'm not sure what this adds to your argument, as the traditional Boy Scout program hasn't exactly been experiencing exponential growth, either. And as for your question: "If Venturing wants an honors program why do they not develop their own?," I would reference my previous statements and ask: "Why should they have to?"(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I wouldn't waive the camping requirement, as promotion of Scout camping is and has always been a goal of the Order. As I stated in my original post, a Venturing youth would have to satisfy the camping requirement to be eligible. As for the advancement requirement. I proposed the Gold award. Some fellow forum members have recommended the Outdoor Bronze, which upon reflection may be sufficient.

I agree that marketing is important; I also believe that how the BSA markets itself is at least as important as the act itself, as it contributes to the ethos of Scouting. How does our nation see us right now? What comes to mind when the average American thinks of Scouting? Does anyone outside the Scouting loop know who Anthony Thomas is? Are we going to see news reports later this month about our National Jamboree? Are the news outlets going to follow the piece with a story about the Cradle of Liberty and/or Oregon lawsuits out of some distorted sense of "fairness?" I sincerely hope Mr. Mazzuca is paying attention to this stuff, but somehow I doubt it. I think we have a long row to hoe not only in advertizing program but in the image we present.

"We don't have a summer vs. winter switch." In southern California, you probably don't need one. lol

"It sounds like you already have your mind made up about Varsity, but here are some ways it can be used." Okay. I'm not sure where you're coming from, exactly, but okay...

I wonder if we shouldn't be looking at this less as marketing and more as messaging. Consider Norman Rockwell. He didn't just present "images representing Scouts." He conveyed the feeling of adventure, the sense of values, and the sharpness of Scouting. Compare that to the imagery that accompanies our current literature. By comparison it is flat and contrived, and is reminiscient of snapshots from scoutshop.org, or the old Supply Service catalog. It shouldn't be about what we're selling. It should be about what we are presenting to the youth of America.

I have encouraged full uniforming in each of the troops I have worked with. That said, the troop I was a Scout in was considerably more lax. The acceptable "uniform" was the Scout shirt, troop neckerchief, and official web belt. This was looked down upon by a certain troop in town who had five Scouts and loads of brand-new equipment, but as we had more spirit and consistently cleaned their clocks at camporees, we accepted this as a backhanded compliment.

One caution - a Venturing crew or Varsity team springing forth from a Troop can very easily take on the appearance and emotional trappings of a schism, no matter how well-intentioned.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"But if the desire is to have an all male Venturing Crew for boys under the age of 18 what is the point? Why not have a Venture Patrol and run the troop the way the BSA intended it to be run?" And if you feel that something separate is needed that meets this criterion, how about a Varsity Team?

Hmm... I never knew that. Maybe I should try that sometime...

"And I have seen a lot more adults flashing their beads around to get authority than their Eagle knots." That's probably true, although that behavior is driven by ego more than anything else, and if they didn't have beads they'd wave something else around. Older Eagles, on the other hand, just don't seem to put themselves out there as much. It's almost as if they're actual eagles, sitting on the high branch observing the proceedings below, occasionally participating but generally staying "above the fray."

This rule is not universal and has absolutely nothing to do with insurance. That said, I'm glad to hear that your troop does that.

"This is all about traditions, thats what the BSA program is, unchanged in how many years??" Hmm... let's look at that one... From emb021's post, it appears that the OA's relationship with Exploring was rather dynamic between 1948, when OA officially became a part of the Scouting program, and 1991, when Explorer elections were discontinued. So to which "tradition" do you refer, exactly? "So if we start taking females just to be PC, where do we stop?? Gays? Athiest? Crossdressers?" Who said anything about this being about females, or being done just to be PC? This is about whether we truly consider Venturing to be part of the Scouting movement or not. I'm assuming you think not, and that you think that because they have (gasp, shudder) females. I shudder to see a fellow forum member compare every female youth member in Venturing to gays, athiests and crossdressers. I'm guessing that many of them wouldn't appreciate the comparison. "Its a slippery slope and we should not go there." Really? Fearmongering?! What dire consequences do you foresee from making this change, exactly? "Again I say, if venturing wants an Honor Program, make one. Its just that simple." I guess that in your world, Venturing youth are just not good enough to be included in "Scouting's National Honor Society." Is that really what you're saying? (This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Look at the part of the quote in caps. Carefully. Now, what does it tell you?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"And if my lack of a belief in a god wasn't AN OPINION (OR LACK OF OPINION), I really don't know what you'd classify it as." Caps added for emphasis.

I really think this is less about traditions and more about comfort zones. Again, somebody please tell me why I'm wrong (that means you, Gary).

Sorry, packsaddle. I guess the original premise of this thread was so baseless that it either had to die with a whimper or get sidetracked by Merlyn, Ed, and (I hate to say it) myself.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Thanks for clearing that up, Gern.