www.vtdigger.org
Vermont Boy Scout chapter adds 95 girls to Cub program By Kit Norton Dec 27 2018, 4:26 PM | 2 comments Putney Girl Scouts Savannah McKeown and Adrianna Sidelinger sell Girl Scout Cookies at Putney town meeting. Photo by Kevin O’Connor/VTDigger As the Boy Scouts of America faces mounting legal battles, the organization has opened multiple scout programs to females and, since June, 95 girls have joined the Cub Scout program in Vermont. The Green Mountain Council, the Vermont chapter of the national organization, has currently enrolled 95 girls in the program that serves children from kindergarten to fifth grade and is planning to open up further programming in February. Edward McCollin, executive director of the The Green Mountain Council, said girls have been part of the Boy Scouts of America since the 1970s, when the organization started a coeducation program for girls 14-20 years of age, and this is another stage of inclusivity for the organization. However, this comes after the Girl Scouts of America filed a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts for dropping the word “boy” from its flagship program. The Girl Scouts filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in November against the Boy Scouts, who now called their program Scouts of America. In the complaint filed in New York federal court, the Girl Scouts claim the program does not have the right to use terms like “scouts” or “scouting” by themselves in connection with services offered to girls, or to rebrand itself as “the Scouts.” “Such misconduct will not only cause confusion among the public, damage the goodwill of GSUSA’s Girl Scouts trademarks, and erode its core brand identity, but it will also marginalize the Girl Scouts Movement by causing the public to believe that GSUSA’s extraordinarily successful services are not true or official ‘Scouting’ programs, but niche services with limited utility and appeal,” the complaint said, according to CBS News. But in Vermont, the two organizations said the Boy Scouts decision to open up to female participation is a chance for families and girls to choose what organization and program is best for them. McCollin said the Green Mountain Council supports the Girl Scouts and has partnered with it in the past and plans on doing so in the future. “My daughter was a Girl Scout. It’s a great organization,” McCollin said. “We’ll see how it all shakes out. This is unchartered waters for the Boy Scouts of America. The program will evolve and we’re hoping for good things from both organizations.” Carrie Green, director of marketing and communications for the Girl Scouts of the Green and White Mountains, said it is unclear at this point whether the Vermont chapter has lost membership to the Boy Scouts as a result of the policy change, but said the Girl Scouts remain committed to giving the best options for leadership and education for females. Green also said there is little concern the Boy Scouts’ female programming will have an impact on enrollment in the Girl Scouts, saying that membership over the last three years has seen a steady increase and there is no evidence the change in policy from the Boy Scouts will affect that moving forward. “It’s about understanding that they are two separate organizations that provide unique programming. We feel the Girl Scouts provides the best leadership opportunities for girls,” Green said. “We’re continuing to focus on what works best for girls and adding more opportunities for girls to go outside, travel, and give back to their communities.” McCollin said beginning in February the Green Mountain Council will start all female scouting troops for girls aged 11 to 17 years of age, in which they will do all the same activities as the male groups and have the chance to become Eagle Scouts — the highest scouting rank in the Boy Scouts. Currently The Green Mountain Council has 1,900 children in its Cub Scout program and has just over 3,000 people enrolled overall in the organization in Vermont. But as the Boy Scouts begins to incorporate females into its core programming, the organization faces legal uncertainties. In addition to the trademark infringement lawsuit, the national organization is facing mounting legal fees and payout settlements to almost a dozen men who claim they were sexually assaulted as boys by a now disgraced scoutmaster, Thomas Hacker, since the 1970s, and is considering filing for bankruptcy. In the lawsuit against the Boy Scouts, the victims allege the organization was aware of Hacker’s arrest for sexual assault in Indiana back in February 1970. But because of inadequate background checks, Hacker was able to resurface as a scoutmaster in the Chicago area, where he continued to assault boys through the 1990s. In a statement to NBC News, the Boy Scouts said it now runs criminal background checks on scoutmasters and maintains a database “to prevent individuals from re-registering in Scouting who were removed because they do not meet the Boy Scouts of America’s standards because of known or suspected abuse or other misconduct either inside or outside the organization.”
Inclusivity, a very misguided use of the word.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Roger: You are obviously a religious, redneck, right winger, nut job, with zero substance. Your tolerance of other beliefs is disgusting.
ReplyDeleteBTW - I am pretty sure I make and have more money than you and Patriotically pay more taxes than you. Enjoy your "ham sandwich".
Hey, what are you doing up at 2:16 AM you bloviating blowhard? Just another sodden drunken fool. How's it feel to be a LOSER in the game of life.
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Does seem like a loser and probably drunk post, why would you be concerned to post at 2:16 in the morning. Thin Skin and no life probably cause that post, Sad!
DeleteObviously can't read either, Anonymous? Its says Roger, I think I'll have a ham sandwich today.
Classic transferrence....
ReplyDeleteClassic ALKY....Your early grave awaits!!!
ReplyDeleteDo everybody a favor and jump into an abandoned well so we don't shoulder the cost of burying your shriveled liver miserable body.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I don't believe that traditional organizations and institutions should be changed, just for change's sake. Some things are worthy of preserving, even if they don't necessarily suit the agenda of others. That applies to a lot of things, nowdays. It's a free country; no one is forced to join the Scouts, go to church, or get married. Altering these institutions to the point where they become meaningless does no one any favors; we end up being a nation without definitions. Relativism is a slippery slope that has no bottom, and we are already a long way down. Trump did not become President by accident; he is what happens when moral, ethical, and cultural standards are lost.
ReplyDeleteHey snowflake liberal 7:52, it's nitwits like you that pushes for these 'everybody get a trophy' type of changes in our society. So in the end, anything you believe lacks validity.
ReplyDelete9:02, you're so blitheringly stupid that you can't recognize a conservative perspective when you see one. You have no real philosophical or ideological foundation, other than what serves your own pathetic, greedy interests. You are nothing more than a sick animal.
ReplyDelete"Conservative" my azz! Just another never-Trumper hiding inside his antifa hoodie. Go suck your thumb Bozo!
DeleteI never claimed to be a conservative, only that my perspective on this issue is. It's "small c" conservative, anyway. You have abandoned any moral authority you may have once had in your mad lust for power and money. You're not a Conservative, your an Objectivist. Never Trump? Never again, anyway!
DeleteAs a result of some of the above posts, one spouse and three children were spared the prospect of domestic abuse when their abusers were able to vent in writing....
ReplyDeleteWell, I tried to start an intelligent, thoughtful conversation at 7:52. I didn't get too far, though. My 9:45 response may have been a bit harsh, but I do believe it was accurate, and indeed warranted.
Delete9:02 - Why do rednecks like to call people "snowflake"?
ReplyDeleteThey think it's funny. Of course, they also think fart jokes are funny, so.....
DeleteCertainly he/she is not calling liberals '"snowflakes" because there's 'no two alike'. On the contrary, liberals find safety in MOB behavior attacking individuals in their homes and at resteraunts. Spineless ANTIFA lovers!
DeleteLike at the Waffle House?
DeleteIt's all rather a moot point. Boy Scouts of American has filed for bankruptcy due to lawsuit onslaught of vengeful gays. Coupled with dwindling membership as responsible parents wisely avoid subjecting their child to an institution that's become a haven for gay pedophiles. No different than our once majestic,family churches along Main Street. Once liberals selfishly corrupted these 200 year old beacons of morality their fate was sealed.
ReplyDeleteThere will be a backlash to the gay destruction of Boy Scouting. Alternative, self-funded, private groups are gaining popularity. These groups, some of paramilitary, fundamentalist persuasion will carry a bitter memory of who their enemy is.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/boy-scouts-of-america-looks-to-bankruptcy-as-membership-falls-lawsuits-mount-2018-12-12
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t973261/
https://wehavekids.com/youth-programs/Conservative-Boy-Scout-Alternatives
Conservative Boy Scout alternatives? Let me guess; the Hitler Youth, right? Get off my bandwagon, Nazi. There's no room for you here.
ReplyDeleteCan boys join the girl scouts?
ReplyDeleteLet's stop the homophobia right here: Child molesters do not do so because of sexual orientation.
ReplyDeleteThis is a meme promoted by America's Christian equivalent of the Taliban.
There are two types known. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports: “The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations.”
You'll find even more interesting insights here:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked
Can count on Chuck to rally in defense of his butt buddies. Butt thousands of incidents are undeniable proof, pubescent Boy Scouts are an irresistible allure to homosexual pedophiles. As detailed in the link, scouting has fought for years to keep this element at bay. Now, it's open season on young boys with every honest father branded as suspect. We can't have a civil war soon enough. HOORAH TROOP 216 of old!
Deletehttps://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-xpm-2012-10-18-sns-rt-us-usa-boyscouts-abusebre89h0zf-20121018-story.html
Southern Poverty Law Center....lol....one of the MOST racist and bigoted organizations in the USA!
ReplyDeleteAs a kid, I had no idea that the boy scouts had a political or religious agenda. As an adult, I find it sad that the boy scouts have a political and religious agenda. Perhaps they would not have this problem if they acted like a public service to help youth with life skills and without setting political or religious conditions.
ReplyDeleteI was in the Scouts when I was a kid. I never knew it had a political or religious agenda, either. It was all pretty mainstream. Probably still is. It's our culture that's gotten radical. Nobody is forcing anyone to join the Scouts; if you don't like their "politics or religion," don't join them. Forcing them to change to suit someone else's cultural agenda is ridiculous, and deprives them of their ability to be themselves. This country was founded on religious and political freedom; as long as they are not directly infringing on the rights of others, they have a RIGHT to exist just as they are. The problem these days is that both the Left and Right in this country seem intent on forcing their respective agendas down the rest of our throats. Every institution and tradition is under assault, or has already been co-opted or corrupted. That's why independents are the largest group of registered voters; we know who's causing the problems. The partisans point fingers at each other, but they're both to blame.
Delete...and what's your source for that claim, 5:13 PM?
ReplyDeleteRead it and weep Chuck.
Deletehttp://thefederalist.com/2018/05/07/5-reasons-southrtn-poverty-law-center-hate-mongering-scam/
Correction: Misspelled 'southern' in link
DeleteInteresting article 7:35. Just goes to show, give your organization a feel-good name and all the idiot libs will open their wallets..... after doing ZERO research!
DeleteChuck is awfully quiet. I wonder how much he donated! LOL
Ah, yes! The publication of the society the greedy join when they get rich. The society which has four members on the Supreme Court. One of their ilk, a UofC Law School prof name Todd Henderson, complained at length about the proposed Obama tax hike making it impossible for him and his wife to live on $400,000 a year. Economist Brad DeLong, whom Henderson insulted, eviscerated him by pointing out why he wouldn't have any money left at the end of the month (the gardener, the dance lessons, the French tutor, the $1,000,000 Hyde Park Home, the Mercedes, etc.) and concluded thus:
Delete"Instead, Mr. Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx looks up. Of the 100 people richer than he is, fully ten have more than four times his income. And he knows of one person with 20 times his income. He knows who the really rich are, and they have ten times his income: They have not $450,000 a year. They have $4.5 million a year. And, to him, they are in a different world.
"And so he is sad. He and his wife deserve to be successful. And he knows people who are successful. But he is not one of them--widening income inequality over the past generation has excluded him from the rich who truly have money.
"And this makes him sad. And angry. But, curiously enough, not angry at the senior law firm partners who extract surplus value from their associates and their clients, or angry at the financiers, but angry at... Barack Obama, who dares to suggest that the U.S. government's funding gap should be closed partly by taxing him, and angry at the great hordes of the unwashed who will receive the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security payments that the government will make over the next several generations."
That's your typical Federalist Society member....
Notice in chuck's rant, he doesn't dispute even one fact contained in that article, not one! Why? Because they're TRUE!
DeleteYou want to see fat cats chuck? Read the article again for a true example of GREED, your precious little Southern Poverty Law Center.
WHAT HYPOCRITES!!!!!!
4:48-- I did read the article, and this is what I have to point out to you about its claims:
ReplyDelete1. SPLC’s Attacks Are Purposefully Personal— Immaterial, if they’re true. If they weren’t true, the parties named could receive lots of compensation in lawsuits.
2. The Southern Poverty Law Center Is a Scam— A look at the financial reports of other even more respected foundations will reveal similar expenditure patterns. For scams, you have to look at really dodgy operations, like the now extinct Trump Foundation.
3. The Southern Poverty Law Center Is Deeply Biased— and the only basis for their accusation is an anarchic (no organization, no membership, no spokesmen, no national leader, nothing) group that doesn’t stockpile weapons or promulgate hate literature?
4. The Southern Poverty Law Center Exploits Hate— and 5. The SPLC Foments Hatred, Fear, and Violence: No, it doesn’t. Read the argument again. To support its claim that the US is the “most racially tolerant country in the world,” the article cites— what else— The Federalist itself. Very telling about the quality of the argument.
It doesn't say much about the readership if the editors think this sort of reasoning is at their level of intelligence, because a moderately- or well-informed person would be insulted in being expected to accept it.
You're doing well upchuck, only took you over a day to invent your nonsensical reply. I'm sympathetic however. I suppose I'll be feeble-minded some day as well.
ReplyDelete"None so blind as those that will not see"
Hey, I've come up with a new moniker for you....'THE OSTRICH'
8:04, the proper way to respond with an argument is to use citations which point out the flaws and weaknesses in your opponent's argument. But I am pleased to see you validate my opinion of the readership of the Federalist.
ReplyDelete