Navybone

My son is in Boy Scouts, and they way he is growing, you are insane if you think I am going to buy him BSA uniform pants every six months. I have a hard enough time keeping him in pants for school, so $120 for pants for one day a week and several weekend events is not going to happen. His shirt is squared away 100%, but there has to be some realism here. And BSA socks - what is the point. Even the military does not tell you brand of sock to buy. Common sense is allowed. my story of the early late 70’s/80’s is this - I was not allowed to wear my scout shorts and the scout socks we bought for summer camp In Mississippi), because I did not have the tabs that went with them. Did not have them at our local JC Penny, did not have them at camp. Too bad - long pants for me at camp (100 degrees, humidity, etc). One of the reasons that I dropped from scouts (along with weekly uniform inspections). The troop I was in before in Europe, the one that was amazing and everyone wanted to be in, no one cared abOut your uniform socks or pants. what is the priority? What is the intent and lesson? What is the return on investment for the scout?

In California, add on top of the BSA training and cost the State Mandatory Reporter training and the Livescan cost ($26). Takes it to what, $71 to go camping?

I would not say that - it s just that the Navy is more technical than the army. Pretty much all of the officer communities has a about a year + pipeline before you get into an operational command. As such, there is no real opportunity (other than failing to pass the different schools in the pipeline) to assess an officers capabilities. There is no Infantry equivalent for the Navy - even surface warfare takes time.

Clarification - For an Naval Officer perspective, promotion to O2 and O3 is automatic (so long as you qualify). O4 is the first promotion determined by a board and it is 100% what is in your record and based on your time in the Naval service. In short, Eagle scout in and of itself will help you get into an academy, or ROTC, or OCS. That is it. What you learned from earning Eagle (leadership, time management, project management, etc) are essential life skills in the military and can very much help you get promoted and be a successful officer. But not because you earned Eagle.

I think that you need to check this. If your son were to enlist, then yes, he would automatically advance to E2 because he earned Eagle Scout. But for ROTC or the service academies, the pay is the same for all midshipman/cadets and their midshipman/cadet rank does not change due to Eagle Scout. And they all commission at the same rank O-1 (Ensign/2nd Lt). I will caveat with my back ground is on the Navy side, but the service are usually aligned on these types of things. Also, the military will not care about the investigation unless there are legal issues. Otherwise it is considered an internal to the organization matter.

Have not been able to get any decision or direction from my council on CinS MB.

This is why the media still calls out when someone makes the news and they are a Boy Scout. Good on the leaders and the scouts for setting the example.

Yes, but... lets also recognize that facts are consistently cherry-picked to make a case for one extreme or the other. As often attributed to Mark Twain - “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.” The 2nd Amendment and the Gun Control groups both use facts that support their position. This creates a "line in the sand" about any willingness to work together to find a compromise. And then nothing happens, until the next killing at another school and the cycle repeats.

Actually, it is exactly what I am saying. Just remove the NRA moniker and official ties to the organizations, but stay aligned with their excellent instruction.

In response to your comment on mass shootings in the 60's and 70's, have to wonder if part of reason that there were not as many mass shootings (this assessment is based on anecdotal, not any specific research by me) was due to availability of types of weapons used today. By this I mean, were AR-15 and other weapons available to the degree they are today? Listening to NPR this morning, the comment was that while there is no definitive data that shows the Assault weapon ban that ended 2004 (?) reduced mass shootings during the period of the ban, there was definitive day that showed a spiked increase in mass shootings with assault weapons (i.e. those included in the ban) once it was lifted. I was in the car so cannot tell you who said it, but the suggestion was that there is a relationship between availability of obtaining certain types of weapons.

It may be time for the BSA to sever its ties with the NRA. It would be a shame since the NRA has good gun safety training (it is what I learned so many years ago). But with the political baggage that comes along with being associated with NRA, this may merit serious consideration. There is some precedence. The BSA has their own lifeguard training. While the Red Cross training is more well know and accepted, is the BSA Lifeguard training any less an effective training curriculum for being a lifeguard (I have no idea, I had the red cross training when I was a lifeguard)? BSA could adopt the same principals and approach to gun safety as the NRA curriculum, but drop the NRA implied endorsement. Not a perfect solution, but may be worth considering.

Maybe because your stance is an extreme. I have plenty of anger about children being killed by guns, but Extremes have gotten us what? Nothing. We are a country and a culture that has relied on private ownership of guns. To believe the answer is no guns is unrealistic. What we have are cowards in office who offer nothing but extremes ( ban all guns, 2nd Amendment trumps all, etc). Until we can walk off that, nothing will change. We are also a nation of compromise, but we seem to have forgotten that. . It’s not a binary issues - guns or no guns. My two cents.

I purposely stated that the political leadership lacks the ability to do anything. I do not believe this is a guns only issue, or a mental health issue, or a video game issue. It is a complex issue that requires adults willing to talk consider all aspects of the issue. If anything, my comment reflects my frustration with the current approach by leaders in this country to state useless absolutes (ban guns, 2A is sacred…)when it comes to mass killings ( there were 6 today where more than 4 people were killed by gun violence). It gets us nowhere. There is no single solution. This is hard, but hard is ok - that is why they are elected but not sure why you think I am censoring you. I am not.

You are right. I read your post soon after reading Congressman Jackson (Tx) comments where he looks to blame music and video games. It would have been more accurate to say that you could read your comments to imply that you support censorship. Not that you are supporting censorship. apologies for putting words in your mouth

I’ll start my response with this, neither political party has the spine or integrity to address this issue, this violence that is killing children. If not enough that’s been done about mental health since Columbine, 23 years ago, and not enough since Sandy Hook, 10 years ago, what needs to still be done? Just saying mental health is not an answer but an handwave to avoid talking about the issue. It’s a cop-out . And I am no statistician, but to the facts of murders with guns stand up to scrutiny when competing in liberal state versus conservative? Fianlly, do you really think that censorship is the answer, and it is ok so long as it protects the second amendment? The constitution also used to support the practice of slavery, but the country was smart enough to figure out that that part of the constitution needed to be fixed.

That is one take, not a very useful one, but one none the less.

Where do we find such men? I have no doubt that Boy Scouts plays a role in shaping them.

Kudos him for realizing that where he is and where Boy Scouts are going are not in the same place and realizing that it was time for him to go. That is not a cheap shot. It is realization that time changes, and that organizations change. And while his views may be different than mine, it is not intended As a cheap shot.

Good for you realizing that you cannot meet the requirements of Boy Scouts and stepping aside.

We use troop web host for the calendar and sign-up, as well as to help track advancement. It works well and while I am not involved in this part, it seems to update scoutbook well. Not too many bells and whistles, but works.

As an adult, last 4 years. You

There is nothing, anywhere that suggest that a culturally aware, diverse, integrated scouts will be anything like you say. Nothing. Anywhere. and to your point that scouts is only about kids camping out, this is what scouts mission 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.

There is no flashback. Your example of red heads is absurd. Affinity groups, if integrated well into an organization can be very beneficial and successful in developing a culture of inclusion and belonging. It is a longstanding best practice in large organizations. If you want to have a meeting of only white males, go right ahead. So long as it has the same goals and structure as other affinity groups within Scouts BSA.

While it would be great that just being a scout would be enough, it obviously is not. Otherwise we would have racism, the sex abuse scandals,, or any other issues. But we do, so living in a fantasy world simply is not realistic. maybe you have never been part of an organization where you were in the minority, where you did not have a voice or you were different and it impacted the people you got to know, the roles you could play, the friendships you could make. That is the service these styles of meetings provide. They are not secret cabal to take over scouting, or develop a separate set of rules, or anything. To be honest, if everyone was living up to the scout oath and law, we would not need these meetings for minority groups.

Of course not. It is to provide opportunity for minority groups that do not have or not are comfortable when in a large group when they are a minority. It’s about creating a venue where they have a voice and others like them will be here to meet and talk to. This BUILDs inclusion and acceptance, or the other way around. And you know what, I would bet you would you welcome to attend if you wanted. You want them to feel welcome, right?