Mr. Boyce

Say Merlyn, I guess I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you. I'm familiar with a community in which community taxpayers paid for various athletic fields and tennis courts. The school locked up the tennis courts over one summer,and eventually wiser heads prevailed, saying that taxpayers could use the facilities which they themselves had paid for. It's fine in my book to let almost any group use public facilities, even ACT UP, local pit bull owners or white supremacists. . . as long as it's not an organization avowedly seeking the overthrow of the U.S. government. People are sophisticated and can determine easily that the school may not condone an ACT UP meeting on its premises, etc. In the instance of the scouts, to return to 1929 or so, I believe it was practical field experience from World War One that convinced many in the U.S. government that scout training was EXTREMELY helpful to the public good: scouts made good soldiers. With respect to creed, etc., I very much doubt that a scout would intentionally withhold lifesaving assistance from a Jew or Catholic or gay or atheist or gun control advocate, whatever. With respect to chartering organizations, the large public value of scouting outweighs its minimal perceived negatives. I'd say it's okay for a school to charter scout troops. At least that's where MY vote would go!

Just drop the loops. Epaulets are frivolous.

Well, it's a shame to see anyone block scouting. I don't know what to say about this fellow Merlyn, unless he's just being perverse and playing devil's advocate. For that matter, I could assert that the Red Cross serves no public purpose. And I can feel sad that he helped deprive many, many youth from an important educational and developmental component. Extremism can be a toxic thing.

I'm sorry. I'm an idealist. I believe this IS a public interest and a common good. I also feel it's a mistake to posit government as "THEM" and citizens as "US". We live in a democracy and must feel responsibility for our own government and governmental actions. Or else the whole game's lost. I dislike the common belief that all government action is inept or automatically suspect. I also feel that if we want a program and vote to do it, we also should feel obliged to pay for what we've bought! Again, scouting generates much that's good for America and for the general public. I think scouts should not be the ones approaching local or state or federal government for assistance, but as a citizen, I wouldn't think it bad if, for example, scouts were asked to help with a state conservation effort or public health effort, as long as it was mutually agreed upon and benefited the public.

Back to my original post, I think as a citizen it should be okay for the federal government to assist charities that do not fulfill every criteria, as long as a worthwhile public benefit was achieved. In other words, the government should have the ability to use a nonprofit if doing so helps it achieve real public benefit. Mutually beneficial relationship.

For me, the real political problem of our age is trying to run a democracy through the dictates of a court. We have essentially made the legislature irrelevant. But there is a moral good in a majority vote. Not all majorities are tyrannies, although I would suppose someone could quibble up minority oppression in each majority vote. The "tyranny of the majority" idea is a very old one, and nowadays it has been replaced by the tyranny of the well-funded and vociferous minority. Passion wins, beating an apathetic majority. I'm a middle of the road guy, but I think the conservatives are making the stronger case in this area. Especially with the extremism of political correctness.

. . . you know, it's interesting to compare the free speech concern motivating ACLU support for the neo-Nazi march in Skokie, with the current "hate crimes" approach that meticulously snuffs out free speech. "Rights" change apparently.

Merlyn: you're right. I think to put my point more simply: the ACLU board decides for itself what's right, then works the courts to get the courts to side with it. It may do some things quite honorably: the Skokie march comes to mind. But it also can work against the public good. In my book, sometimes the social good trumps an individual's claim of a "right". I'm not happy with the notion that a mere handful of individuals, no matter how political or esteemed they may be, deciding for the mass of the population what "rights" are. In fact, I'm not at all comfortable with depicting public life as a framework of individual-oriented claims.

Gern, I think it's more complicated than this. The ACLU for years has worked the system. It has its own agenda. More to the point, the ACLU relies on a specific notion of WHAT civil liberties are. For instance, the ACLU has decided to agree with the idea that there is such a thing as "homosexual rights". Acting on this, it files lawsuits. There is today no generally shared set of "American civil liberties"; civil liberties are being contested by the conservatives and liberals, and the ACLU goes with the liberals. Because of this, many people feel the ACLU is on a vendetta. It would be much better for the organization to simply stand up for civil rights with a long and settled history. I am dumbfounded that we are expected to believe that just because a majority of the transient ACLU board has voted that a "civil liberty" exists, that we are supposed to swallow it.

. . . I'm not clear on why the HQ moved from New Jersey to, of all places, Texas! Anyone have the whys and wherefores?

I just finished the James West biography. It's an excellent one, strong contents plus strong writing talent in that one. I've also just finished the book on the history of the Catholic Church, Triumph: a 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church, by Crocker; again, an excellent read, especially since it was very well=written: useful for all Christians.

I'm just curious. Can you jot down a few sentences explaining why you're in scouting? I think this would be interesting.

I agree that the "make everything in China" rush is an experiment that hurts America. Why care? Because we still have to take care of our people. Like many, I have found cheap Chinese goods to frequently be of poor quality. I recently purchased a cheap bamboo fishing kit for $5, and it hardly held together. . . I would have been willing to pay an extra $4 for something that actually worked.

Good comments above. I am amazed at how dictatorial youth sports organizations are. . . and parents allow them to be so. They are highly demanding of time and money. Some years back I was on the board of a symphony which virtually gave away tickets to concerts. We decided to raise the ticket price. . . in the belief that people would then believe the program had merit. This twist worked. Perhaps scouting should be more demanding. Perhaps the new uniform is really meant to assuage boys' concerns that the uniform looks silly or stupid, etc. (By the way, glad to hear Louv's comment: I was in a troop years ago that was emphatic about hiking, plenty of hiking: a good way to condense an outdoor experience into one day). BUT are there historical statistics on scout participation? How forthcoming is national with hard data?

There are major efforts underway to start connecting kids to the outdoors, courtesy of Richard Louv's Last Child in the Woods book. Interestingly and oddly, the book does not acknowledge the existence of scouting, except in passim. This is a glaring omission, since now there are organizations trying to get kids outside who have never done this before. . . when instead, scouting could be more easily promoted. To some extent, I wonder if (admittedly lefty) conservation/environmental groups may eventually craft an organization that gets kids outside. . . ignoring scouting due to political disagreement with scouting policies. But does national show any scout population cumulatives over the past 10-20 years?

. . . I'm sorry. I forgot to ask my question: is there any ongoing source of national and international scouting statistics, perhaps compiled over the years? This might be a good thing to see.

I rather agree with much of Lisa's points above. It is interesting to me that there is a vast gulf in appreciation of the role of marketing between substantial corporations and the average nonprofit organization. Most local and state nonprofits are pretty "heads down"; they do minimal or very modest amounts of promotion. But there are many things competing for leisure time nowadays. Scouting is a great program, and it has MANY attributes that can be marketing. It just needs more emphasis on this. And perhaps some coordination, if possible, with similar organizations. Locally, I think councils would do well to have a dedicated and experienced parade/honor guard unit, which could go to various larger weekend events and show the colors. I was terribly impressed with a large number of Girl Scouts marching in a local parade: they really made the organization's presence known!

I like the knee socks, too. And I had a scoutmaster who could wear the BP hat with something approaching elan. He made something potentially dorky into something moderately cool. I like the neckerchief look over the collar look, and the collarless shirt. The collarless shirt could be worn for a ceremony: put on a neckerchief, or, out in the woods, without a neckerchief, and it would be nice and cool. I think, too, the neckerchief look INSTANTLY identifies you as a scout. I'm not so sure that a uniform shirt with collar does this so quickly or so well. And, as you can perhaps tell from my previous post, I'm not a fan of fussy epaulets.

. . . I'm going to end my comments on this thread, since I think we're either beating a dead horse, or our words are falling on deaf ears.

I agree entirely with John-in-KC. To be truthful, I don't think I would care to serve on the council executive board simply because it does deal with basic management. . . not the fun stuff of scouting.

Oh, I'm not moaning, really. I think the image that comes to mind for the average member of the general public, when you say "Boy Scout" is probably the Norman Rockwell look. Sure, modest changes along all those 60 years or so. But I wonder if "brand identity" is hurt when the package changes substantially.

I'm not sure the BSA has lost its purpose. There's been a 25% decline in camping since the 1980s. . . I think generally the idea of going outside, camping and hiking, knowing about the natural world around us, just doesn't have much vibrancy with most youth. Instead, it's sports and computers and music. Parents STILL believe their boy will be able to win a scholarship (so they don't have to save for the cost of education), and there are readily available sports camps, etc. (I'm surprised that after all this time, the general public doesn't realize how very FEW athletic scholarships exist relative to the school-age, school-attending population.) One factor I wonder about is whether in today's society, there is much of anything said that is positive about America and American ideals. Ideals will always motivate youth. But political correctness and multiculturalism/enforced tolerance seem to work against any organization that stresses values. (And here, I don't just mean the big hype 3G stuff.)

I can appreciate that what the boys think DOES count for a lot. But it's curious that the uniform looked okay to boys in 1920, 1940, 1960, etc., with no real change. What happened in 1979? Did the national organization ever explain the change?

For perhaps 60 years, Boy Scouts was known for its green uniform and neckerchief combination. What was the reason for the change around 1980?

I like the above remark. I think, too, better ongoing, professional PR is needed at the local level. The word needs to get out to the general public that scouting exists locally with plenty of good opportunities, good program.