skeptic

Got an email reminder from Scouting Wire, and just noted the link for "careers". So I looked at it. Here is the page that came up. The open jobs surprised me, as we are in a tight place and so found it interesting, especially the amount that appear to be executives. https://www.scouting.org/careers/open-positions/

No, lawyers that abuse the legal system and search for "victims" with vague promises and misleading claims are worse. IF they were only going after the actual abusers or predators, they would not fall into that category, but hey are likely doing almost as much harm as the original predator by dragging emotional pain out of the past and causing many to have to again deal with it. As noted before, no amount of money will salve this, and the destruction of BSA serves no purpose, other than one of greed by these lawyer vultures. None of this is ever going to stop the predators, as they will always find a way and will never go away. The idea that somehow BSA can absolutely stop them is simply ignorant. It is a dirty and greed shaded vendetta.

First, it is simply sad that this discussion is even being made. So, if done with the right care, could LC's rewrite their own Charter to include a primary method of distribution of assets, one that does not have NC as the only option? Yes, the vultures noted above would scream manipulation, but if it is a State sanctioned non profit, does not the state have the first word?

That is of course the truth and reality. But, our society seems unwilling to find the fair and better solution, depending on our warped legal system to somehow salve the wounds with money and vindictive decisions. Meanwhile, as pointed out by a number of posters, the bulk of the iceberg remains hidden and dangerous, mostly in the very places that should be the safest havens, the families and their immediate social constructs. No manner of revenge or societal water-boarding will solve the larger and most hidden elements of this. On the other hand, we should continue to find viable ways to keep it at bey. Strengthen, as we find ways, YP. More importantly, establish a monitoring system as part of it, and try to assure it is in place. We will NEVER eliminate the darkness that lurks in the human animal or condition. And completely ruining BSA, or any other mostly positive element of society only makes the darker shadows more likely to grow. JMPO of course.

And there is part of the problem. A small group of people "prefer" that every lurid innuendo is thrown into the public eye. They do not care about anything but money and media attention. What is actually fair, balanced, and in the best interest of the greatest number involved does not matter in the least. Back to the local trenches.

The local council comment uses the term, "must be realistic". There lies the rub.

Let me simply ask please. Can anyone realistically; Make any of the claimants whole, if their claims are accurate? How much effect was there from families if the report was made? How much outside pressure from societal forces occurred when reported? How, especially when BSA was not yet a required reporter, were they to override the community responses common at the time? Today, IF the actual perpetrator(s) or even their families are still around, is anything being done to bring them into the case? And, if the facts should suggest that the family, or someone in it, was aware of the propensity that led to the abuse, should they too then be held accountable along with the BSA, any authorities that chose to look away or pass it off as minor? Can ANYONE seriously suggest that killing the BSA and other youth serving organizations EVER STOP perpetrators? NO; they are part of human nature, though the darker part. Should this whole mess lead to a complete restructuring of our legal system so as to take away much of the good old boy, money, and power factors?inally, can most of us with rational thought really want the current youth to be punished for the crimes of past adults and organizational problems? For me, the answer to most of these is no, other than the last one, realistically. Further, the ruin of the BSA will serve no purpose, other than that of the vulture lawyers. ALL of us with any kind of longevity know that the community good the BSA gives far outweighs most of this. We also know that BSA is only a target among many, but one the lawyers found easier to attack. Now some of them are already salivating over the Y, Boys and Girls Club, and 4-H, as well as GSA.

"Also 402 for "YMCA", 167 for "Boys and Girls Club" , 89 for "Boy Scouts of America", 9 for "Police Athletic League", 5 for "United Way", 5 for "Red Cross". So, it appears that based on this both the Y and the Boys and Girls clubs in theory should be on the hook too? I do not understand if these details are accurate why we are not seeing something related to the other groups. I do not want them damaged either, but why should BSA take the full impact?

As if the YP issue was not complicated enough with worrying about adult or older youth. This article is definitely fodder for consideration. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/minority-report/201904/sexual-behaviors-in-children

Maybe, in today's atmosphere. Things once considered just normal life's activity today often draw strange responses, especially when they get brought up in a multigenerational interaction. Kind of like the idea that somehow we survived some possibly bad ideas such as riding in the back of trucks with little or nothing to keep us in place. Or, as foolish dare devils jumping off of high places into unknown water, or drag racing. I find myself wondering how I ever made it out of childhood with not bike helmet, no seat belts, no required life jackets for poor or non swimmers, or even just playing in the streets at dusk. Yet we did.

I continue to have an issue with the use of the "broad brush" that puts ALL of us in the same basket, even though most of us would have had no idea about what was happening, especially in some other state or location. YES, there were huge judgement errors made and maybe even a few purposefully. But that should not brand the majority, in this case the very large majority of adults and, yes, some scouts, as responsible for it all. I suspect if you were to delve into many councils and units going back decades, and found those "in the know" you might find how many of the "bad actors" actually were removed or barred. That includes in units and within the youth ranks. Not only do these things actually seldom get wide public exposure due to their very nature, and the privacy of those involved, but other than assuring the report to the proper authority is made, it is none of our responsibility to make it public, especially if it would stigmatize anyone in error; and yes it could be unverified or even made up. Catch 22 of course.

Rational people or groups pick their legal fights if they can. Right now this is not a high level concern, especially since it would be immediately turned around to club them again.

Let me revise this a bit. Shelter in place if you can determine a safe location that is low, dry, and less likely to carry current. Rethinking my concern for the boat house, if there are is enough space, as long as it is separated from the ground inside, that may be best. Obviously, a vehicle is better, but you still have to get to any of these things. The picnic shelter is an absolute no-no. Kind of a hard decision, and storms do catch you on occasion, no matter how well planned, especially on back packs. Away from trees, stay insolated from the ground a well as possible, do not touch metal or anything likely to carry current, stay low and as small as possible (they recommend grabbing knees in some info). Now, if there is enough time, other options may be better. Hopefully you chose a good spot for the tent, if you have to stay in it, one that is not too low or near large trees. The insolation issue still applies. You also need to stay as far from the water as possible; but that should have been part of setting up in the first place. Fortunately, in the mountains, you can be able to be the lesser transmitter of the lightning. At summer camp, we generally try to move the people inside the buildings of course. We do have some outlying campsites, and they could be an issue if getting to the buildings exposes them more. No absolutes. Low, insolated, do not touch things, and hope it blows over so you can adjust more safely.

I would be leery of the bath house unless I knew for sure it was grounded. It is on the lake and likely has lots of metal, like pipes.

You hunker down and warn them to stay in their tents and not get in the open. The shelter is just as likely to be a lightening draw as a tent, as is the boathouse, and they are on the lake which is also open. Stay away from the trees if possible. Do not touch metal of any kind. Assure they all understand and whatever you do, they need to stay separate as they are. Once the storm moves out, you can appraise the damage, if there is any. Do not need what we had at the 85 Jamboree the first night when Hurricane Bob ran a squall line through our campsite, knocking down one tent, busting tree branches, and causing some boys to panic.

I guess what I really wonder is how many "claims" are along the lines of what I describe? At the time, few thought anything was wrong with it; we were all males, and so that was all that was important. I do remember sort of hiding behind my father and brother a bit much of the time, and my dad never let us go into the shower alone. As I have collected old photos from very early scout outings, it is pretty obvious that skinny-dipping was not discouraged. Again though, that was common then. Boys and girls both did it, though not together, as that would have been frowned upon. The real issue seems the contradictive nature of measuring that period in time against today. It is not a balanced comparison. Time will tell I guess. Meanwhile, back to working within the parameters of the modern age.

So, I am 77 years old. In the early fifties, my brother and I were members of a local YMCA, along with our dad. Learned to swim there, and had wonderful summer activities, such as Disneyland the year it opened, and visits to car plants and tuna packing and museums in L.A. area. But, I had some hormonal issues early on that effected my development. It was dealt with with two years of special shots, but at the time, I was not on track with my peers physically, and was embarrassed by things easily. BUT, in order to swim at the Y, we had to use the male locker room, which included all ages and open showers. I remember being a bit intimidated by that, especially when it was crowded with full grown adults. Later, I also was forced to take open stall showers in HS after P.E. It was not an option; and the coach or sometimes an appointed older student would monitor us. Intimidating, and embarrassing? Yep, but we learned to cope. Society did not think anything odd about this, nor would they likely have entertained lawsuits for psychological trauma of a minor. So, with our new outlook on things today, do I have grounds to sue the YMCA and my old HS school district? After all; I still remember these things and how I felt once in while standing next to an old man in the Y shower with his nakedness right in front of my eyes, and him talking to me. I am not serious about doing this of course. My point is that where do we mark the lines of demarcation? What is psychological trauma to an 8 year old in with a bunch of older males in a shower? What is the trauma of having your school peers make jokes about you or others and the level of changes in your physical development? Am I really stretching things with the viewpoints we are currently seeing? Comments, or admins decide it is not a valid subject.

So did girls much of the time, sometimes faster than the boys. But, once they reached a certain age most were too demure, or simply told by parents that girls did not do that.

Yep, I believe you are right. My experiences, both at Jambo's, Philmont, and our local camps, including summer and COR is that the boys have no real issue once they get past the adult naysayers.

Evolution of the program will hopefully soon realize the foolishness of no coed. As someone pointed out, if young males are to learn to function in the larger society, they need to also learn to deal with competition from their female peers. The male youth that have the desire and initiative will come to the top, just as in the real world. We continue to not give enough credit to our young people and their abilities to maneuver in a muddled world. Meanwhile, many smaller units are missing the boat with their interested female applicants, especially the ones already in the cubs where they can have their separate dens and are otherwise coed. contradictory, in my view.

So how does that reflect on the camp staff that is coed and teaches both genders? As noted, makes no sense. Absolutely no reason a male scout cannot teach female scouts, as long as the adult leadership is in effect and they are not secreted someplace.

What was the extent of the fire? We in So Cal have been holding our breath with all the wind we are having and the still drought conditions in much of the area. We have had almost no rain so far this year, and what has fallen, has passed around our particular area for the most part. Glad it was controlled quickly.

And we come back to the impossible expectations of a few that any protective program be 100% or it is not working. Catch 22, especially in our society. In many other parts of the world, you would not be likely to see the over kill that we see here. We have noted more than once that much of the issue is with our legal system, one that is reactive rather than rational.

So, will the sensationalist media grab these and run, leaving BSA in the shadows? Probably not, as the lawyers do not see the money, so they will not feed the media, and so the media would have to do what they once did, actually dig for information and the facts.

I am not a statistician, but I do see an apparent drop in reported cases in more recent decades on the offered chart. Still too high, yes. But, is the lower amount due to membership loss, or due to better YP overall? Again, nothing is perfect or foolproof. We are back to the question, should BSA or youth sports, or any other youth connected group be disbanded and run out of town due to miscreants that did not get caught and so on. How about the "Me Too" possible victims? What makes it apparently okay to look the other way in some cases, but try to ruin groups or people in others? Again, I know there is no answer, because we are all fallible and live in an often nasty or oblivious society. The charts for councils seems to indicate ours had 86 cases. In how long? I know of a half dozen since I have been in the council. But that is not normally info that is well known. At least one known perpetrator dates to the thirties or earlier. Another who died in prison i think, never focused on boys, but rather females, including his own family. Are all the abuse claims "sexual", or do they include in theory psychological or physical abuse, other than sexual? If an adult yells at a youth in frustration, and perhaps uses less than appropriate language, is that abuse also included? What if they then actually apologized? So many facets that we do not know, or cannot know.