skeptic

"Is NRA good or bad?" My long time perception is that the original NRA was and still can be positive player in this issue. But, that status has been eroded by the politics at have taken over the organization. I have discussed rational and common sense ideas related to this with a number of NRA members and somewhat radical, in my view, gun owners. One of those is my older brother. He agrees almost whole heartedly that reasonable training and barriers are essential, and says he would have no problem with them. Then he turns around and starts with the corruption of the 2nd Amendment nonsense and goes off on the common tangent we hear about this. Yet he just agreed that training and restrictions are important for owning and using a firearm. He has taught his own sons, and their children how to safely use guns, and will absolutely stop them if they abuse the privilege. So, I find it even more difficult to understand this disconnect. Still, much of what NRA still offers is viable and positive. They just need to get back to the simple premise of responsibility and safety, and away from the noise about "taking our guns" and so on. That of course is part of the POL problem, as many use it to gain a foot hold of some sort over some who are not necessarily rational already. JMHO of course.

BTW it is a federal regulation that school district must give scouting the same access to students that they give to any other outside group. Every school district has at some point outside groups that come in to interact with students from speakers to book mobiles and so forth. Check out the BSA access law. As noted, this is in fact a "law". Yet if we confront the school or district with it, have we opened it up or simply made the possibility of cooperation more difficult? We have struggled in our council for years with this, more in some districts than others. Much of that falls on the individual school and its staff. When a school has a principal and or teachers that are positive on scouting, and who know how many Eagle projects, for example, are being used on the campus, they tend to be more open. But the media continues to poison the well, and that is something that is too often beyond an individual unit to fix, other than indirectly. One thing that appears to have been somewhat effective in our council is the actual recognition of educators using the Fretwell Award. It is now a part of our annual recognition, given at the same time as regular Scouter awards. What is crazy is that so few councils apparently really even know it exists. In our council, I specifically asked our district chair and scout executive WHY we were not using it? They were basically not even aware it existed. https://41zfam1pstr03my3b22ztkze-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/522-05918_EKFretwell_Guide.pdf Take a look.

At every camp I have attended, the issue of Gun Safety and so on has been major. Range access is monitored and anyone violation things either leaves or sits for a bit, dependenton the problem. No Scout or Scouter is allowed to shoot without the proper precautions, including ear and ey protections and, if unfamiliar with a gun, direct aid or monitoring. The merit badge includes a major protion on Gun Safety and I believe touches on the gun control issue, depending on the state. The NRA still isa major supporter of BSA, and part of that is because of the eductional elements of the BSA programs, which evolved from the original NRA structure and educative ideas. As we struggle in our seemingly impossible political morass over the Second Amendment and Gun Control and safety, what is our role in getting past the obdurance and foolish overreactions? Our youth and leaders do not seem to not understand the basic needs and safety issues, and again, they cannot handle the guns without proving they know how and can be safe. So why is that simple premise, in some broader form, not acceeptible to the political naysayers? Common sense should suggest that real testing of some sort should be a gun requirement, just as it is for driving a car and so on. It should not be this hard to put that idea of safety and VERIFIED QUALIFICATION into play. And all guns licensed in some manner seems prudent. Types of weapons possibly restricted based on certain factors of course also make sense to someone that looks beyond the hyperbole about "taking our guns". So, what do we do as responsible community mentors? How might we strengthen even more our BSA Gun program?

Once again we are experiencing the pain and suffering of a warped society with children killed in Texas. Most of us understand it is not the weapon itself, but the individual that uses it, that is the challenge. But, for whatever reason, and I personally lay it at the feet of the politicians on both "sides", nothing changes. Meanwhile, we see the BSA under continuing siege to be eliminated due to legal and emotional drama brouoght on by a very small group of sick members of society and some very poor reactions of BSA leadership. My point is not that the abuse issue in BSA is not real and does not need to be addressed, but rather, that the real premise of Scouting, the real foundatinal tenets of the Oath and Law, have proven for decades to help youth become active and valuable citizens that are positive parts of society. I would suggest that the BSA and its real foundation is sorely needed today, even more so thatn when it started over a century ago. Just saying.

Once again, the simple concept of local accountability and common sense are lost in the egos of too many adults. Meanwhile, the youth issue is not being properly addressed. I too often see the expectation that somehow someone from "on high" can dictate to those in the trenches. But real Scouting is local, which means the units directly. That is WHY there is a committee. And their option should be to get the input of the COR, if necessary, but try to find the solution within by actual adult discussion, not childish accusations and hysteria. Or so an old guy sees it.

I still have one from our trek in 1979. The crew honored me with it when we got off trail.

The story reminded me of our Philmont Ranger in 1979. He had a nickname, Bear Bait. He was sleeping outside while out with a couple other rangers, but he was first year and had been the target of a few jokes. So, when he felt like someone was trying to roll him over in his bag, he reached up and smacked at who he thought it was, one of the others tormenting him. The bear did not like getting slapped and proceeded to reciprocate. Fortunately, the bag was thick enough, and the ranger able to curl up within it; and his screams woke the others nearby who ran the bear off. But he ended up with some stitches, but otherwise no serious injuries. And he did not let it send him home. When we had him, it was his third or fourth summer.

Definitely a YP issue as discussed. IF the tale is accurate, it appears some individual has a problem with the color pink worn by a male. And that is very biased, or worse; IMHO. One way of course would be to ask the whole troop to wear a pink shirt; but not sure that would do anything but annoy someone. Still, it might help the young lad too, especially if the other troop members show their support somehow. Years ago, we had an 11 year old that was always in sine conflict with other youth, both at scouts and with peers in school and neighborhood. He had a really difficult time as he was very small and had two sisters that drove him crazy at home and he was the one in trouble. Also a domineering father. Anyway, he had ridden his bike to the meeting and got into it again and chose to go home. It was not dark, and his parents allowed him to ride, so I told him okay, but we would check to see he got home okay. We have a large hall in the church that we used for games, and we were up there near the meeting end. Here comes the boy with his bike, covered with egg and dirt. He had been jumped in the school yard next door; not hurt physically, just made a mess of. Well, the rest of the troop had to be restrained from running to the school to find those responsible, because he was part of the troop. That was a turning point for him. While he never bade it past FC, he stayed involved into JC. He is now a father with a GS and Cub and retired from the Army. Scouting works.

Wasn't there some type of atttempt by GS to attach their suit to the bankruptcy?

There goes one week of cookie profit. And into the pot for survivors I would think.

Thanks for sharing. More perspective on the evolving issue. I find myself wondering though is these suggestions are universal, or seriously tied to a small population or culture? There are examples historically of seemingly very opposite populations, especially with the early matriarchal groups dominated by strong women who appear to have been the dicision makers. I tend to think that the basic ability for women to do most things is tempered only by their physical limitations, and that their mental capabilities will often overcome those challenges, either by actual effort to change certain genetic factors, or by creating aides to simply overcome those physical challenges. So it seems to me that girls will adjust, as will boys, given the opportunity and as little adult interference as possible. JMO of course, as am not an expert, only a longtime observer.

Back to my perception that balance and awareness must take place. And today, when puberty seems to begin earlier, especially for girls, your comment has room for adjustment perhaps? The part about girls being more apt to do the "boring" planning is true, but with that comes the indiction I observed that once confronted with that, the boys often step up and become involved, even at an earlier age. It still seems to me that the membership issue would improve with coed, especially if larger units were to have the girl patrols if necessary. Then the older youth would still be pretty much on the same level for more advanced leadership. But we are missing the boat with girls if we insist on separate groups.

Being wired differently is not an answer, simply an excuse. If the youth can function in school groups or church groups and so on, then they should be able to do so in Scouting. As noted more than once from my own experience as a sub teacher, which meant many variants in students, groups became balanced pretty much once stabilized. While middle school girls often took over a group initially, in many case the boy(s) came forward to challenge. And in many of those, the group output became far more viable and reflected both sides, so to speak. Sorry, the psychologists that claim the males are intimidated by females in that age group are not working with complete data. Too often, they construct their own slanted surveys and so on to arrive at their predetermined position. Again, I spent many years in a half dozen middle schools and below, and what I noted was almost universal. We might also note the best of the Ships and Crews in our own programs that are universally mixed in gender, yet function very well with the various points of view, based on gender perception, seeming to lead to a better balance and more success.

For me, it is past the time for evolving and time to make the logical change. How many more girls would already be in units if they made just that one adjustment? What do I know? I tend to look at thing with reality and logic.

The Lone Scout issue is interesting to me. I know that I have read on this forum, as well as a couple of other threads on Scouting about girls joining as Lone Scouts due to not having enough girls for a troop. So I know that it is allowed, or so it appears. We have struggled to start a girl unit; but we got the minimum briefly, but soon lost one, then another. I had suggested the Lone Scout direction anyway, but the local Executive says we do not meet criteria. Of course, what he really means is that he want another number for a unit, evenif he then approves three when we started it, now down to one. And since we no longer have the number we have one girl in limbo, and he still says no Lone Scout. To me, this is foolish, as if we get a few Lone Scouts to start, we might find enough others with time; and in the meantime, the young women get to do the program. The one we still have has a brother in the troop who is our SPL and bugler. Of course, I personally am still of the opinion that there should not need to be two untis separately. 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.

A bill being proposed to deal with private institutional youth schools and such. How much is this in some way similar to the abuse issue with BSA and others? https://www.aol.com/entertainment/revealing-sexual-abuse-allegations-paris-191112644.html

Well, I am going to have to do a better job proofing. Or just turn in my teaching credential. 🙃 Of course, since I am retired, I do not use it anyway.

Looking over that precipice, if only for a few moments, is terrifying. Fortunately, most do draw back and with luck they come to grips in other ways. For me, my losest points have often drawn words into a journal of verse and essay. And rereading things from years back frightens me on occasion, but also makes me realize that hope can still be nourished. I am fortunate to have somehow developed a personal spirituality and am grateful for having been guided to that place by some important people in my life when I was at the low point. And they in turn were able to help me reconnect with the lighter things from the past and come to understand a little better. That is just me, and I pray others might find that guidance in some manner aw well.

How to say this without being "accused"? IF the time frame denoed for victims coming forward is valid, and every thing I have read indicates it likely is, or even off in that some "never" can bring it out, then how does that reflcect on the basic abuse event? Somewhere on here, one survivor noted that his father never knew. The studies indicate that male abuse victims are far less willing to even broach the abuse, but rather try to hide it. That is not giving any excuse for the abuser, only asking how, at the time, was it dealt with? If the parent(s) were not told, how might that have made the situation more difficult? Would not the survivor/victim have been left with little support when things did not follow as they should have? Again, we see evidence today with some studies that the emotional effects often manifest in ways most parents are not likely to understand without knowledge of the event, and some, of course unfortunately even then do not understand. Part of the updated YP is a discussion of flash points that might indicate some trauma, and what to watch for. That is a step in the right direction, but we need to continue to reinforce this concept and not hide our heads in the sand as was too often the case in the past. Please, I understand that trauma, whether abuse of this nature, or simply something that frightened a child severely can not just be forgotten; it is buried too often as part of the human response (?), or lack of emotional strength at the time. It has to be worse, perhaps for abuse, but it also can relate to night mares, or even painful injuries. I am trying to get perspective, not suggesting the survivor/victims are to blame. This is far too complex for most of us to completely understand, if even the "experts" still do not do so.

Why must everything always have "sides"? People are people, and in most cases they should be able to just live and do their own thing. What is the purpose of constantly finding fault and making inuendo? Certainly does not reflect well on the idea of Scout Spirit, or most religious doctrines, or even the the Constitution. Just asking.

I am putting this here, as I am unsure where it might be a point of discussion. This quote is from an opinion piece related to the current SCOTUS issue. But it seems to me that with a tweak or two, it might well reflect on the problems in BSA and really society in general. BSA or Scouting began as an effort to create better citizens at a time of great turmoil and change. It became very idealistic, even as it struggled to fit into the changing society. The repetitive use of its "goody-goody" image as out of sync grew, even possibly making some refuse to recognize that it still had elements of the greater society or culture in which it was living. Here is the quote; "What is clear is that the court has become a tragic anachronism in our age of rage: an institution that relied on the integrity and ethics of its members and staff at a time when such values are treated as naive. It relied on justices and clerks alike remaining bound to the institution and to each other by a constitutional faith." Moderators, please feel free to do what you choose and put it in the right place if you feel it does not fit.

You see the error in your statement. Lives were ruined by the perpetrator. Others that chose to cover up, or keep private, or simply ignore for whatever reasons are not the ones that did the damage, they are secondary. The focus should not be first on BSA, or local authorities that chose to say they had no proof, or not enough, or on famillies that felt the need to keep it quiet for some reason. IF the actual abuser had not done it, the others would not even be in the picture.

Where do I find the cobbler?

It seems apparent to me from the recent series of post on Bryan On Scouting that there is awareness of the ongoing concerns and need to keep the issue openly visible. Today's link is a great reminder and offers tools, again. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2022/04/29/five-takeaways-from-child-abuse-prevention-month/

Oh please, don not bring up actualities and what actually happens.