vol_scouter

So what is Scouting all about? If we look to quotes from Sir Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell:"Field efficiency, backwoodsmanship, camping, hiking, good turns, jamboree comradeship are all means, not the end. The end is character with a purpose.†"Keep before your mind in all your teaching that the whole ulterior motive of this scheme is to form character ..." So the purpose of Scouting in general is character development. For the BSA, the Mission Statement is: "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." So Scouting is about values and character development. He also said: “A fisherman does not bait the hook with the bait the fisherman likes, he baits it with the bait the fish likes, so it is with boys.†Camping is a means to instill those values and character but not the only means.

Renax127, I have a Venturing Crew full of youth who are interested in STEM but have little to no interest in the woods let alone the backcountry. All children want to explore their world but increasingly that world involves technology derived from science and mathematics that has provided the fuel for engineers to create the new technology. They have far less interest in the outdoors. We have used STEM to get the youth involved and get them into the outdoors. If we turn the paradigm around, we have no Crew because they do not want to join a primarily outdoor activity group. STEM Scouts seems like the same hook - provide high quality STEM experiences with some outdoor activities. It is likely that some of those youth will develop a love of outdoor activities. However, they would never join a traditional Scouting unit.

NJCubScouter, The same thing was said of Exploring but it has not occurred. Same thing was said of Venturing but it has not occurred. A new program does not have to affect the membership of any other part of the BSA. If the membership in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts were to ever change, it would only be because the volunteers want the change. The Scouting professionals have no ability to affect such a change.

So BadenP opines that a case for a STEM based program has not been made and Eagle 94-A1 quotes Green Bar Bill. However, the movement has experienced declining membership for forty or more years with only adjustments when the age to join has decreased. It has been said that better program would turn that around and the program is better than ever before. In addition to Philmont, Sea Base, Northern Tier, and the Summit Bechtel Reserve have improved the program along with camp COPE and Ropes courses but the decline continues. Others have pointed to training and so there are more trained volunteers and professionals with far better courses but still the decline continues. Get boys to First Class in a year, change the uniform, advertise, etc. Still the decline continues. ​Remember why there is a Scouting program: "Field efficiency, backwoodsmanship, camping, hiking, good turns, jamboree comradeship are all means, not the end. The end is character with a purpose.†Baden-Powell So Scouting is about teaching the values of the Scout Oath and Law. The mission of the BSA is: "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." How might Baden-Powell advise us today? He does provide guidance in the quote: “A fisherman does not bait the hook with the bait the fisherman likes, he baits it with the bait the fish likes, so it is with boys.†So the youth of America are not very interested in the activities that the BSA has been offering otherwise there would not be continuous decline. Yet despite doing everything better, the movement has not seen true growth in a long time. The reason to have a program like STEM Scouts is to instill in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law by offering activities that they wish to do. To do less is to deny the need for the youth of America to have the lasting values of the Scout Oath and Law.

Mozart, As an EB member in the GSMC, I can assure you that no local council funds re used in the STEM Scouts pilot.

Stosh, Many share those sentiments but some of us enjoyed school. Learning is a challenge and fun just like outdoor activities. Some of us were glad for school to start each year and excited by the new textbooks and things to master. Not everyone has the same motivators or interests. Seems like STEM Scouts might attract those youth. My Eagle was earned many years ago but the values have lasted a lifetime. That is the purpose of the program. Maybe STEM Scouts will do the same.

It would seem to me that since STEM Scouts is not part of Boy Scouts or Venturing, there is no issue as to the OA membership. They would not meet any joining requirements.

First, if you are in Scouting to deliver the Aims and Mission of the BSA, then reaching only 8% of the youth is unacceptable. STEM Scouts has been designed to reach a different demographic and has done so in the Great Smoky Mountain Council. Theexpansion of the pilot will determine if that is the case in other areas. Second, the standards and policies of the BSA is established by volunteer committees. People like those on this forum. Likely, some serve on national committees. It is not the professionals who make the policies. The BSA has developed better programs, has more and better trained adults, has had advertising campaigns, and the trend continues with declining membership. Baden-Powell said something to the effect that you bait the hook with the bait that the fish like rather than the bait the fisherman likes. The youth are not taking the traditional bait very well despite doing it better and better. If we want to reach more youth, we must have different kinds of bait to teach the values of the Scout Oath and Law. Otherwise, it is very likely that the BSA will shrink to the point that it ceases to be viable. Lastly, on using the name 'Scout' or 'Scouts', if the BSA does not defend that name whenever they find that it is being used by others, it will lose the ability to protect it. That is simply a legal need.

When you go to the website, only lawyers can be full members, It is discriminatory. The categories have been gradually added to lists. So why not discrimination based upon education or training? If religious organizations are included then judges should not belong to religious groups either including atheist groups. This becomes absurd.

So does California prevent judges from being members of the ABA? It discriminates against those who do not meet its membership requirements. All clubs and organizations have some sort of membership requirements to join. Those vary from common professions, common hobbies, common beliefs, etc. The membership of those clubs and organizations have the right of free association which is what the Dale case explored. The government of California is determining what kinds of discrimination is acceptable and which is not. To me, either tell judges that they cannot belong to any organization, including religious organizations because they extract some sort of allegiance to a set of beliefs that not everyone entering their court will agree, or allow them the freedom to choose for themselves. I vote to let the judges choose for themselves and not allow states to dictate which discrimination is acceptable and which is not.

T2Eagle, The shortage was not evident as soon as you believe. They tried to do just what you suggested but not all college students could do it. One must be fit and possess much upper body strength. So when the problem became evident, they tried recruiting as you suggested but it turned out to be far more difficult than they would have believed. When I learned of the problem, I thought that it would be easier to recruit than it turned out to be. The BSA was flexible, thought outside of the box but things did not work out as they had thought. The folks doing the programs worked extremely hard, are very intelligent, very oriented toward the youth having a great time, and excellent planners in their professional careers. They are far more than competent - they are leaders in their fields. So it was a learning experience and it will be better in four years.

Basementdweller, I was on staff as well and what you say is simply not true. The largest problems in staffing was getting trained people. The Jamboree even offered to pay for zip line certification training that was about a 14 day course and physically very demanding and expensive. There were still too few to operate the zip lines to capacity. The shooting sports required NRA instructors, not just anyone. The planners did not anticipate the poor response for staff. The reasons are not fully known but in my personal opinion is a function of the new weight requirements and the terrible economy that made the cost prohibitive to some that would have gone in other years. When the staffing levels were determined to be too few, it was too late to decrease the number attending. How would you propose to do that? Which boys and girls would you cut? They made the only reasonable decision and that was to proceed with fewer getting through the various venues. As said elsewhere, adults were not allowed to participate in most activities. ALL of the youth with whom that I spoke were having a great time. The site and facilities are really first rate and should only improve with time. I do have some concern about the camp being able to pay for itself in the non-Jamboree years. Jamboree was a great success and the Venturing youth only added to the experience.

DWise1, The only way to get a clear answer to you query would be to contact the BSA legal department at the National Council. The only thing that you will get here are posts from the web that you can also find, various opinions and points of view, and some arguments. You are asking for a definitive declarative statement. You can get those from court cases or directly from the BSA if they are willing to make such a statement, which I would doubt. It is not clear to me why you are so demanding on this topic. Do you intend to take something posted here to assail the BSA in a public manner?

If that is correct, Basementdweller, then they are liars and certainly not adhering to Christian values.

Never heard cannon, mortars, howitzers, etc being called arms. Looking up several online dictionaries reveals that to bear means to carry. If the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow us to have RPGs, Howitzers, etc, they would have been in some manner delineated. The Founding Fathers were rather specific. So you are simply incorrect. As most on this very forum have realized, background checks and all the other proposals would not have prevented the mass murderers. So why are you and others pushing for it? If you admit from the outset that it will not work, why punish the law abiding Americans? Why infringe our rights? The only reasonable answer is that then it all be said that the mass murders are still occurring and we need to follow Cuomo to gun confiscation. If you want to infringe gun rights, you need to amend the second amendment. It is that simple. You and the rest of the left know that it will never happen so you infringe on our rights. Even if these things were good ideas, which they are not, you must change the constitution. No wonder the left is saying to ignore the constitution. One academician is calling to get rid of the entire constitution. The left is shredding it so throwing it out is part of the natural progression. Never waste a 'crisis', right?

So Beavah, let's get it right. You said: "That right should not be broken, but da Congress in Article I is given full powers to regulate." but the Constitution says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So it is not 'broken' as you say but the much stronger and more limiting 'infringed'. Frankly, all but revamping the US mental health system is an infringement upon those rights. In regards to Article 1, you must be referring to these clauses in Section 8: "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" That in no manner gives the federal government the right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. In the early days of the Republic, the government would inspect the firearms that the men owned to be certain that they were functional - they did not dictate which ones that they could own. There were bombs, cannon, mortars, and rockets in the US Revolution. We were not given the protected right to personally own such weapons. That is not a valid argument for usurp peoples rights. The Congress could issue the militias arms that they wished to be used in militia service. However, that did not give it the power to regulate the ownership of private firearms. You and the rest of the liberals do not wish to follow the constitution because you all realize that it would fail. Therefore, you hide behind good sounding rhetoric to infringe upon our rights. It is well known that only the mental health revamp would have prevented the mass murders but yet you and the rest of the left wants to do it anyway? Why, if it would not work? Either the goal is to gain more control over law abiding citizens or it is simple folly. Considering the English used by you and others trying to subvert the constitution, the former is more likely than the later. That would make Cuomo's call for gun confiscation the next step because we already know that these will not work.

Beavah wrote: "I think most of us agree that da "assault weapons" ban on sales is silly, and da magazine size thing won't really work unless we get draconian like Basementdweller suggests. I think most of us agree that encouraging research is a good thing. I think most of us agree that da time for universal background checks has come. I think almost all of us agree that mental health screening of some sort should be part of that universal background check system. I think most of us are in favor of some form of education and proficiency stuff, tailored to da intended use. Most of us believe unattended guns should be secured, especially if we have kids around. " Agree, there should not be a ban on semi-automatic weapons or clips and magazines. Disagree on research because it will waste money and the answers will be pre-ordained. Background checks are only for the law abiding citizens and do not hinder criminals. Heck, they can just buy them from the Obama Justice Dept. Agree, we need to overhaul the entire mental health system. This is the only proposal that would have been likely to have prevented any of the mass shootings. Both the left and right oppose this. So the only thing that could help, hospitalizing the seriously mentally ill, will not occur. Agree, have proposed that all children be taught gun safety and marksmanship. There needs to be no new laws. All have a duty to protect children from harm or unreasonable temptation to do something dangerous (a easily accessible swimming pool for example). How I choose to do this is my business and not that of the federal government. Beavah's attack on people who do not share his beliefs in many ways negates his arguments. If you wish to infringe on my rights, then amend the constitution. It clearly states that the federal government cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms. So quit trying to usurp our rights, follow the constitution, or quit talking about democracy because you do not practice it.

The BSA is self insured so all of the legal fees for Scoutmasters and their Assistant Scoutmasters who get sued because of injuries or deaths in Scouting are defended out of the national office. The so called perversion files that is embroiled in lawsuits that are paid by national. Every time there is a lawsuit over membership standards or access, that is paid for by national. The surveys called 'Voice of the Scout' to make better programs is paid for by national. Developing new programs, determining how to make programs better, update uniforms, etc. is paid by national. Scouting has more to do that is affordable than ever before. Climbing walls, COPE courses, etc. Councils raise money for those activities. Losing corporate supporters hurts all Scouts and Scouters.

As others have alluded, if the data is charged with political implications, it will not likely be available in a meaningful way. Best example is climate research where the actual raw data is not made available but rather an 'adjusted' data set. Since the raw data and the reasons for the adjustments are not available for scrutiny, it cannot be judged whether the changes are reasonable or not. Often, the data made available for the public has been done this way. Some data is thrown out because it is an outlier and considered inaccurate. However, it can also be thrown out for reasons that other researchers might feel as not a valid reason. If the raw data and the adjustments are not made, then those decisions are never made. If data was collected in a clearly defined manner with all caveats, assumptions, concerns, etc. delineated and all of the raw data reported, then I have no issue with the collection. The publications will be biased just as they are in climate science. Beavah, there are areas of research in medicine that does not get funded or considered favorably in medical journals. An example is infectious causes of heart disease. Evidence based medicine sometimes does more harm than good because medical research is so difficult and expensive to perform and the biases (some driven by pharmaceutical companies in the big name schools). The more politically or economically charged an area of scientific inquiry is, the less likely that there will be any scientific truth. Gun control advocates pervade academia and there will not be a far scientific evaluation. It will be used to restrict our constitutional rights. If your desire is to restrict the constitutional rights, then amend or repeal the Second Amendment. That is what the founding fathers designed. It is not the dangerous rhetoric of Obama and the left.

Beavah, Can't find that right to ride a horse in the constitution. So no, I do not think that there would have been a right to a car or the lesser right to drive. Your argument makes no sense. Why do you folks on the left (I know that you believe yourself to be sort of old republican but your views are all to the left) not wish to do what the founding fathers would have thought appropriate - amend the Bill of Rights? I believe the reason is, like most things from the left, it will never pass the people.

Packsaddle, Perhaps I was not specific enough. These are the rad workers in the US DOD facilities. So Hanford, Y-12, ORNL, LANL, LLNL, Savannah River, etc. Also, it is well know that a large doses, especially in a short period of time is different from low level that I mentioned. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the research does show that those radiation workers are healthier than their age matched cohorts. The dial painters were swallowing radium which has nothing to do with the rad workers that I mentioned. You know that is a red herring in the argument. In my one of my fields, there exists considerable bias as I mentioned and that is medicine. Try to get funding for some out of the box ideas in medicine. Won't happen from NIH. My other field has little issues and tends to have more definite and measurable data. Climate research is not physics though many physicists work in climate science now. JMHawkinsis correct. Politically charged research will have biased results.

Beavah, I have read the clear bias in medical journals against guns over the past 25 years. I have read the editorials that praised poor research or touted conclusions that were not substantiated by the data. I have read the large studies over decades that studied the health of radiation workers. Those studies show that radiation workers at US nuclear facilities are more healthy than their age matched counterparts. They have LOWER cancer rates with the exception of lymphoma that is slightly increased though NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. Yet, the introduction to the rather large summary papers is that radiation work is dangerous and causes cancer - they just can't demonstrate it. They conclude with an anti-radiation theme. Conclusions that cannot be supported by the data but does match the world view of the left. Such conclusions in not politically charged areas of research would not be published until those things were corrected. Prestigious scientists have resigned from their professional organizations because they are no allowed to bring up any contrary view to AGW. The press is even worse because they do not understand science. So once again, save the taxpayers $10 million and declare guns to be evil. Fair research is not possible in this debate in the current climate in our research community in which I work and love. It is a sad time for science and America.

acc40, Cars are not rights. What you are saying is applied to another personal right could go from what you wrote: "I say treat guns like cars - tax them, register them, license them, make operating them limited to qualified individuals and test those individuals on a periodic basis." to I say treat speech and religion like cars - tax speech and religion, register people who exercise their rights for speech and religion, to make political discourse or to go to a religious place requires a license, only qualified individuals can practice free speech or religion and those individuals mud be retested on a periodic basis. That is what you are doing to another right. Just because you do not perceive it as important does not mean that it is not very important. If you wish to deny citizens of their rights, then repeal or amend the Second Amendment.

As I noted earlier, non-politically charged research is done and judged appropriately. Anything that is political in nature has filters from funding sources and the review/publication process. For both, there is bias toward the left's ideas about the way that the world operates. Any federally funded research will have a bias that guns are bad and needs to be controlled. They will not fund research that is likely to show otherwise. Any results that do not support the favored conclusion that guns are bad and should be controlled. Contrary results will either not be published or will be roundly attacked by the left. Have witnessed it my entire life. There is no need to do the studies. They will conclude that there is no reason for a private citizen to ever own a gun. It may be ok to shoot on federal land as long as the guns stay in government control. That will save the taxpayers $10 M.

Interesting that everyone bristles at the thought of restricting First Amendment rights but have no problem in restricting Second Amendment rights. Neither should be restricted. Violent films, games, and music does harm youth. Lack of outdoor experiences harm youth. The horrific state of our mental health system is a large part of the problem - the root problem in all the mass shootings. Emphatically, guns are not the problem and are protected by the Bill of Rights. I have yet to hear a pundit or read a columnist who believes that anything proposed by Obama would have changed the outcome of Sandy Hook. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. It is very simple. Cars don't run into people or other cars, drivers steer them into people. The arguments on the left make no logical sense unless the long term goal is confiscation. Otherwise, the 'tolerant' left is making ridiculous arguments. BTW, the grown children of the president of the NRA are getting death threats. Such tolerance of different ideas!