Mr. Boyce

Romney: people are not going to go over the Mormon hurdle. Palin: just an odd duck. Far too lightweight for what our country needs right know. Pawlenty: gets a good report; I don't know much about him. Huckabee: seasoned and sensible, he's my pick. other libertarian types: I'm not anti-government; this perspective doesn't fit modern times.

Here's an odd comment: have your local tailor make you a scout shirt. It may not be as expensive as one might think.

That's great. I'm there!

I believe it is an absolutely great award, and one that should be promoted through all kinds of scouting, including requirements for adult volunteers.

What's your personal history with sports as a youth?

Scouting's for boys. The learning and achievement are for youth. The adults are facilitators. . . and, truth be told, the more tangible (award) motivators in scouting really aren't much motivation for me. As facilitators, scouters should really be in love with the program and what it can do; it's a bit like coaching a sport because you love it.

. . . in your opinion, what's the best long-sleeve shirt make?

Proud Eagle: I really think you hit the nail on the head, really spotted something important, with the observation that sports coaches actively, consciously try to exclude other activities. I had not thought of that as a conscious action on their part. But it likely it, the more I realize I've heard about coaches rules. Perhaps one thing a troop can do is exclude scouts from a major activity unless they met an attendance quota. We can endlessly quibble about this or that fat-standard until the cows come home. But we know one is needed, in the end, and like all rules, may not be exactly perfect. Even something rough is better than nothing, and a good start. I agree about BSA top management getting on the ball with this, and dieting. Mr. Mazzuca's statement would carry FAR more meaning had he stated he would lose ten pounds in the next six months. Leadership by example is an obligation of the CEO. More than this, in his shoes, I'd have rounded up my senior managers, discussed this, and asked for a comparable pledge from them.

. . . don't forget TML... too many lawyers.

Overall, you know this is a good thing for scouting. We don't want a situation in which scouting "is for the fat kids who can't play basketball."

I like this a lot! I think there are a lot of possibilities that can be done along this line.

It's interesting to see the economic turn in the discussion. I've seen a good deal of poverty in the rural situation. . . and it's poverty never much mentioned by the national media or various kinds of political leaders. And to be sure, it's the kind of poverty that crosses generations: a poor family with children that don't get an education and then stays pretty poor themselves. I note the mention of the term "poor white folks" and I'm guilty of the use of that terminology; thanks for noting the problems with it. I'll do better.

I like shortridge's comments. I've worked in PR and have always been stunned at how badly the grassroots communications is. One chief danger for the national entity is coming across as quasi-Nazi in this day and age.

I've read over this twice now. I'm surprised that they have not been doing some of these things, mainly surprised the organization does not seem to have established some good pipelines to youth (e.g., focus groups, etc.) previous to this. We can criticize the Corporate-Speak of it all, of course; this is 2010, and most of us have been around a bit with consultants and such, and we can recognize the iffy quality of such things. For me, the biggest concern is the premise that the BSA is another "Youth Organization" and gets categorized as such. I think the BSA is special, a thing in itself, it's own category, and the usual toolbox of business answers might not be able to provide paste-on solutions.

Cool enough stuff. Interesting that as a boy, I liked Captain America. Good fighter, interesting war story stuff.

I was Christmas shopping yesterday and ran into some po' white folks: offensively dropping the f-word hither and yon in public. Sad and disgusting; my guess is that they just have no direction.

The SAD thing here is that political leaders preach the virtue of "free trade," but the reality of the situation is always a one way street: free on our side, protective on the other. This is how we get screwed. I'm tired of the nonsense.

I'm confused about Merlyn's talk about discriminating "by religion." Scouting's points include reverence, so I assume any real atheist would have little interest in joining the BSA, the others just $eeking law$suit$.

One other BIG thing is the new "24-7 Professional Politics" in which both parties have an ongoing, never-ending political battle. This leads to political nonsense: serious issues reduced to sound bites. The death of serious consideration of issues, by voters as well as politicians. Both parties are in this ongoing, never-ending tussle. I wonder to what extent the "culture wars" are just a side-show of this ongoing, 24-7 battling.

You know, it's hard to say no to this; it just doesn't matter very much. If it trips your trigger, fine, wear the medals; heck, it might be interesting for others to see them on you. The more the uniform gets to be an oppressive thing, the less joy people will take in wearing it. It becomes a burden.

. . . and of course this fellow was angry about welfare moochers! But don't most SS recipients take out more than they ever put in (with interest included)? at any rate, here's what I think's wrong with the country: the idea that everyone's view or values are different, so no one person's views are better than any other persons. This leads to anything goes pretty quickly. PC run amok!

Beavah makes an interesting point. A few years ago, a multimillionaire I knew, an elderly guy, was very keen on collecting all his Social Security benefits. Well: (1) he'd already received much more than he'd ever put in, (2) it seems counterintuitive to even include someone in his income bracket into some kind of retirement system.

Beavha: some good points there. I, too, have wondered why anyone with some capital to deploy would risk it in a small (unprotected, right?) business, when there are so many special investment options out there, totally secure (bail-outable, since we want to keep the rich fat and wealthy).

I don't go for science by popular vote, but science with popular oversight. Let's face it, we make moral choices in determining what research to fund. It's interesting to me that women's breast cancer research gets such huge public attention and funds (with 40,000 annual deaths) versus the negligible attention paid to prostate cancer (with 32,000 annual deaths). The "funds per death" formula is not equivalent.

I feel he's failed at his great, self-picked goal of being a uniter and being a great compromiser between political factions. Why? Well, it turns out he's NOT moderate. He's been extremely liberal, far beyond what the great majority of Americans wish for.