What does National mean?

[CalicoPenn]

My take is that the BSA is celebrating 100 years of Scouting. For 70 of those 100 years, the Scout's "Timeless Values" were part of the nation's value system as well. 30 years ago, change started occuring in society. Societal values began to change, as was inevitable. Any student of history can tell you that values change in civilizations all the time, that there really isn't such a thing as "timeless values". 30 years ago, the values of the nation and the values of the BSA began to diverge. For the first ten of those years, the BSA tried to expand their reach by introducing the so-called "urban" program (which was as much suburban as it was urban). The BSA got it half right. They assumed suburban and urban values were pretty much interchangeable - they got that wrong - but their program was successful in strengthening the program amongst the blue and white collar workers of suburbia. The growth of suburbia didn't really start until the 1950's, it took the BSA 20 years to get a good handle on that. In the 1970's, suburbia experienced explosive growth - the sleepy bedroom suburban communities of the 1950's and 1960's became self-actualized cities, with retail and industrial tax bases urban areas would envy. During the 70's and early 80's, the BSA seemed to be able to keep the divergence of values to a minimum - they were aligned with middle america suburbia, which became the defacto values of the nation. Then suburban values began to change. The farm crisis, coupled with television shows showcasing urban settings (how many shows were set in farm country in the 80's & 90's?)or urban sensibilities in rural areas (NYC doctor in Alaska), compelled many young folks living on farms to seek their fortune amongst the bohemian urban areas. Societal values now began to change even more - especially among young people. Migration from the (white) middle class urban areas slowed as most of the migration took place before 1980. Migrations from ethnic middle class urban areas and from diverse lower class urban areas to the suburbs grew - a lot. For 20 years, the BSA fought to maintain their "timeless values", paralleling the fight to maintain the status quo by the so-called angry white (middle class) man. It's been a losing battle, and was bound to fail (the backlash against President Obama by the white, middle class "taxpayer" is sounding more and more like the last desperate death calls of a great beast).

 

It seems to me that National may finally realize they can be one of those dying great beasts, or they can start to adapt to the changing reality of the times. I think they finally realized that the societal changes aren't some kind of cosmic hiccup, but are here to stay. The question they're asking is one that many of us have asked over the past few years - How does the BSA remain relevant in an ever diverse society. The question they're really asking, in my opinion, isn't what will the BSA look like 10, 20, 50 years down the road, but will the BSA be around to celebrate a 200th anniversary. I think they know that the BSA is going to have to make some changes, some perhaps radical changed, in order to be around for another 100 years. I think what they're doing is subtley suggesting that change is going to happen, be prepared for it, be open to it, and be part of it.

[evmori]

Not in my opinion, Ed. I'd say most school administrators didn't realize that the BSA expected their schools to actually break the law.

 

Now that's contrary to when you posted

 

Ed, I agree that school officials were wrong to sign any BSA charters, and that these school officials were either acting dishonestly or out of ignorance. I don't think the BSA can claim ignorance, so that leaves dishonest.

 

 

[GernBlansten]

I'm not a big fan of this American Idol style of governement.

We elect representatives to govern us.

If you don't like their positions, vote for their competition.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It isn't contrary, Ed. I'd say most school officials were ignorant, and didn't realize that the BSA expected them to break the law. Now, signing a contract out of ignorance isn't a good thing, but it's better than signing a contract knowing you are agreeing to break the law. The BSA certainly knew that, but I doubt most school officials knew it. That's why I don't agree that they share the blame equally; the BSA knowingly acted dishonestly in every case, but I'd say the vast majority of school officials acted out of ignorance.

 

This is off-topic, Ed, if you bring it up again I'll just state that you can't learn things, and I will repeat that thereafter.

[vol_scouter]

Majority rules is the basis of democracy. Hopefully, the majority will see fit to pass laws to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. However, the more common phenomenom is now for the the minority to dictate to the majority which is no longer democracy.

 

We do not elect anyone to govern us - we elect people to REPRESENT us. That means that they should represent the views of their constituents. We are (or were) a representative democracy. We are not to governed by our elected officials but represented. So if the constituents in a congressional district are overwhelming against a bill, then the representative should vote against it. To do otherwise is to destroy our democracy which many seem bent on doing.

[GernBlansten]

Poppycock.

What do call the Governor of a state? A representative? He/she is governs the state. We are the state.

[vol_scouter]

In this country, the POTUS and governors enforce the legislation of the elected representatives. Your thought process is why democracy is dying in this country.

[skeptic]

Gern: The governor still is supposed to adhere to the constituents, just through his particular body of representatives, who are supposed to represent the voters. So, not poppy-cock. Part of the problem is that we have had close to a hundred years of professional politicians who have let themselves be swayed more and more by lobbyists and other forms of money. It would not surprise me if less than 20% of our so called "representatives", state or federal, or even local, voted on the wants of their constituents.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

Majority rules is the basis of democracy. Hopefully, the majority will see fit to pass laws to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority.

 

Ah, "rights by crossed fingers." Like that works.

 

However, the more common phenomenom is now for the the minority to dictate to the majority which is no longer democracy.

 

Well, the US never has been a democracy, but you say that like it's a BAD thing that the majority can't vote away the rights of a minority.

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

Once again you are wrong. A constitutional amendment could be brought before the congress who are representing the views of the majority

to strip a group of some right. If that amendment is then ratified by the states, it becomes the law of the land which the SCOTUS must then

follow. Such a sequence of events is very unlikely but possible. Then that group will have lost the right without a means to restore it except

by repealing the amendment. So the majority can rule whenever we elect people who believe in a representative democracy. We currently

do not have a majority of congressmen who believe in representative democracy.

[GernBlansten]

Poppycock!

Our representatives are law makers. Laws govern us.

Law makers govern us.

 

Remember the complaints in 2004 that John Kerry governed by popular polls? Would be swayed by the current political winds of public approval? And that GWB didn't do that?

How does that stand up to your previous statements?

Not well.

 

No. Our representatives need to have a finger on the pulse of their constituents, but if they are forced to follow the noisiest and most vocal opinions, we might as well disband the congress and implement an American Idol phone voting for every piece of legislation.

 

Quite frankly, I'm embarassed at some the comments coming from some of those who you would think would respect the traditions of our forefathers.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

Once again you are wrong.

 

No, I'm not.

 

A constitutional amendment could be brought before the congress who are representing the views of the majority to strip a group of some right.

 

Which is not the same as the majority voting away the rights of a minority. You have to change the constitution first.

 

Then that group will have lost the right without a means to restore it except by repealing the amendment.

 

Wrong; armed revolt can work, too.

 

So the majority can rule whenever we elect people who believe in a representative democracy.

 

Which is not the same as the majority voting away the rights of a minority.

 

We currently do not have a majority of congressmen who believe in representative democracy.

 

How so?

 

[evmori]

Ignorance is no excuse, Merlyn, but you already know that.

[NWScouter]

I want to ask you a question. What is the way you determine if a legislator/representative is not doing what the people he is represents wants? Not just who yells the loudest or disrupts meeting the most, but what the people in his/her district want. It is called an election. They were elected by a majority of the people in their district (I know a very few by just a plurality). Every two, four or six years you get to vote them out if enough of you in their district agree with you.

 

This summer I went to two of the town halls my US representative held, I talked to many of the tea baggers, found very few of them who voted for Rep. Larsen, who won with more than 60% the last three times. It seems to me that the people in our district like what he is doing.

 

Elections is how we determine how we what to be represented. The people who voted him would feel betrayed if he voted against for example the house health care bill, in fact may of us feel it doesnt go far enough.

 

I cant do much than send a check to defeat your representative in your district, but I can work hard to get my elected that thinks like I do. Thats why I dont like term limits. Why should I not get to keep someone I like? No one should limit my choice on who gets to represent me.

 

BTW I'll be in meeting with Rick Thursday morning.

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

You can wish to be governed but I want to be represented as the founding fathers setup our representative democracy.

 

Merlyn,

If the majority pushes the congress to deny rights, then they can be denied as I outlined. Certainly, a minority can rebel at any time they wish but that was irrelevant to the point.

 

NWScouter,

My representative sends out reguar mailings about what is happening and has polls in his district. Additionally, he meets with constituents often. He votes the opinion of his district. Just because a representative won does not mean that his/her constituents cannot have a change in understanding and the majority may longer support the positions held by the representative. At that time, the representative has an obligation to change their vote. I agree that small vocal groups should not rule but this summer the groups were not small and often were comprised of segments of the population not prone to protest - that is significant. These citizens are being disenfranchised by their representatives.