packsaddle

Heh, heh, that was also good. I defend the French in spite of what seems a contrary nature. Actually that might be their most endearing characteristic. But without the French, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. This link is to a good book: http://www.patriotresource.com/resources/history/books/schiff.html in which Franklin is said to have essentially saved the Revolution by engaging lots of aid from France. Most (up to 90%) of the gunpowder used by the colonies came from France, for example, as did plenty of monetary aid. This, on the other hand, could also be seen as another monumental French blunder...perhaps subsequently inspiring the spirit of revolution in their own country. Another one of those delicious ironies....

Hey, I gotta tell ya Fuzzy, glance around at the adult volunteers...take a close look (OK, not THAT close). I don't think anyone ever STOPPED eating them. Your point about the military is well taken. But who cares...it's the chapeau, man! The hat! In contrast think about China, the Great Wall! Do you have any idea what their hats were like back then? Do you care? Nope, and that's because they were simple, functional, and forgettable. OK, so the French are so-so soldiers, just don't forget their food...and then for the piez de resistance - all that beautiful plumage. http://www.fjminc.com/accessories/plumes.php Bon apetite

Au contrare, I must demur. I like 'cavalier' much better for a number of reasons. First, it's French. Second, THEY have those really nice big floppy hats with the fluffy feathers...

Scoutldr, Yep! Fuzzy Bear, that was a good one. But while everything topographic is good, all-in-all I prefer the 'mountains' to the 'mole hills'.

Jerry, I can say with some certainty that I sure don't want to see the photos. But I think SemperParatus already may have set the bar way too high. Hope it doesn't stifle the attempts though.

Rooster7, "Aah, I see. ..." Well, yeah. And yet you contradict yourself in the next paragraph. Tsk, tsk. Now, as to the way we enforce the your new regulations resulting from 'Mammogate', we must find a way to distinguish between the good ole WASP 'fried eggs' and those earth-mother 'puppies'. What arbitrary cup size do you suggest? Or, to use the vulgar concept I was taught in industry, how many units? Let's say, for example, one of the boys' mothers previously was a centerfold model and the enhancements are, ahem, way beyond normal methods of restraint, what then? Or, as the dirty limerick concludes, "...one was so small it was hardly at all but the other was big and won prizes?" Should we be ashamed of the woman whose mastectomy prosthetic tends to be a little obvious? Should those with 'normal' breasts but prominent nipples be required to include Scotch tape or band aids in their toiletry kit to use in hiding the otherwise obvious parts? At some point you simply cannot deny the diversity of the human form and the best response is to celebrate that diversity, not to condemn it. If it was possible, I would rather create some mechanism to address those persons with small minds, not abnormal body parts. Keep in mind that I agree that the naked human form is often rather unflattering (glancing around at my co-leaders). But it IS functional - resulting from millions of years of evolution. And many of those boys were hanging on those 'puppies' just a few years ago. I write this as I snack on cookies and mammary gland excretion. There is nothing inherently moral OR immoral about the FACTS of our anatomy. There might be something immoral about the way we think about the body but that is not the objection here. The objection is that, in essence, the woman is allowing the fact to be known too easily. I suspect that the boys already know about these facts and either don't care...or else they may be as disgusted with the female form as you are. Either way, it doesn't constitute much of a threat to humanity. Unless there's a BSA rule (and I'd just lo-o-o-ve to see them try this) or unless the CO wants get the courage to bring this up as an issue, you'll just have to fight the good fight (whatever). Trevorum, the only part on which I don't agree is that part about the appealing picture. It's not so much I think it is appealing, or not, but rather - it really is a matter of individual opinion, isn't it? This is a just a tempest in a tea pot. Edited part: Scoutldr, we were typing at the same time. Looks like we're thinking along similar lines. About those bellies, you know don't you, that some of them must be wearing thongs too? And here's another thought: can you just imagine, given the discussion of the fit and feel of the uniform, how the discussions would go if there was a regulation BSA bra? Boggles the mind. Finally, a long time ago Bob White made an exlamation saying "Aunt Gertie's Garters" and that has creeped me out just a little ever since. Today I found an old silent film called...... "Getting Gertie's Garters". Wow!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

The local university mandates that all incoming students purchase a notebook computer that meets certain specifications. The specifications are established to make sure that the computer will not be obsolete before 3-4 years have passed, and to guarantee compatibility with the campus-wide wireless network. Other considerations are added for students going into math, science, or engineering because of the greater requirement for computational power and speed. The price of these machines continues to fall if one considers a fixed standard of performance. But new developments in science and technology demand increasingly high performance so the price seems to remain nearly constant (while performance increases). If MIT has developed an inexpensive display, that would be a great contribution to lessen the cost. And I have long championed the open source Linux version of Unix as a superior operating system (Apple Computer has seen the pixels on this as well). Computers are becoming disposable commodities and the $100 version may offer great opportunities to those merely seeking internet access. However, I think its best contribution to the student will be to help drive down the price for the more powerfull notebook computers they will need to purchase.

Welcome to the forums, Mike5097. I read the followup responses and it seems the original author didn't get much sympathy from his fellow rv'ers. I agree, the description fits cub scouts better...a movie? Really? But I think campgrounds are susceptible to this regardless of who the people are. I know I've had some sleepless nights when the rv crowd decided to party late. Finally, I admit my prejudice, but it is difficult to sympathize with someone who thinks sleeping in a motorized hotel is 'camping'. For that matter, come to think of it, sleeping in a 'fabric' hotel with hot showers and a snack bar close by doesn't seem like 'camping' either. Just my bias.

OK, time to take this seriously I guess. Go to many other places on earth and experience the people. You will find that what seems unusual or unorthodox here is commonplace elsewhere. I would do absolutely nothing. I would say absolutely nothing. It's really none of my business. If she chooses to dress in that manner, bathed or not, as long as it is a legal uniform, no problem. There is nothing I know of that addresses it in the regulations. But I admit...I haven't looked for it either.

Fuzzy Bear, I'm not quite clear on this. Are you saying that someone complained?

Here's an idea. Start taking photographs, lots of them. Take them from angles that accentuate the problem ;). Then put them in a collage with other photos for a display of some kind and ask her for her critical eye and her opinion on the collection. Perhaps there is a sense of vanity in there somewhere that will cause some reflection. Here's the downside, you may get some requests from others.....ahem....to see them as well. Not that I would, no siree!

Trevorum, I only wish we actually were becoming truly conservative. As it is, when I think of the growing divide between rich and poor, the abundant deceptions in government, the erosion of personal freedom, the gargantuan deficits (intergenerational theft), the mismanagement and lack of stewardship for our natural resources, not to mention the WMD lie, the terms 'reactionary' or maybe 'radical' seem more appropriate. It would sicken Barry Goldwater.

Been there, done that! This isn't exactly on topic but anyone who doesn't know about the Yorktown needs to know it is a really great trip to make (although in the heat of the summer, well, you know) and well worth a significant drive to get there. And there's also the submarine, the Savannah, and Fort Sumter as well as Charleston itself. What a great combination! I could go back with the boys many times and learn or see something new every time. Really great trip and they have an overnight program custom-made for BSA. Prairie_scouter has a valid point, I think, and the fact that some of us have our hands full already does not detract from his argument. Although some of us may not have time to worry about boys whose families turn away, it is a shame nevertheless.

That is interesting. I too, think it would be fair to charge all groups, even those sponsored by the school (government). It is one more move a little closer to a free market environment and that, in my mind, would be an improvement.

Sorry, emb021, I have a personal problem with 'Dead Poet Society' because of the suicide scene. It hits way too close to home for me. Just a personal view.

You guys have some good suggestions. I'm going to high-grade the list for my picks: Erin Brokovich Mr. Holland's Opus Local Hero I would add: To Kill a Mockingbird also, Inherit the Wind The Right Stuff Ghandi A Civil Action Regarding Henry

Hey, I buy the stuff and I don't eat it. I give it away. But the popcorn that my cats reject as litter (I think because it smells so bad) gets thrown out and guess what? Birds eat it. I think that explains the term 'bird brained'. I buy a lot of girl scout cookies and I relish every bite. Man, I'm getting hungry just thinking about them. I think I hear an ice cream sandwich calling to me....

Well, Yeah. At the camp we attend, if a person wants to visit for a meal, they ARE charged a fee for the individual meal. Otherwise the total weekly cost is included as part of the camp fee that all campers pay. Are you saying there are free camps? As for the other fees, the boys already pay for basketry materials, cartridges for the rifles, shells for the shotguns, carving supplies, leather supplies, etc. If a material is shared commonly by the camp, say, waterfront tags, or if its individual cost is so small as to be cumbersome to recover as an individual fee, the cost can be fairly added to the overall fee. Is this really that difficult a concept? Or is this a demonstration of passive-aggressiveness?

Hunt, you made some good points. I just think the most direct way to avoid those thorny issues is to take the lead from Trails End who someone mentioned did a market analysis. I have to hand it to Trails End. They did a masterful job of analysing the market potential and then creating a fund-raising relationship with BSA that allows both to make a lot of money. If BSA adopted a market approach as has been so successful for Trails End and applied it thoughout the organization by deciding fees for goods and services, objective competitive forces arising between vendor and customers would eliminate some, perhaps many, of those thorns. Everything would be open and transparent, and people could make informed decisions based on benefit/cost. I'm feeling like the only free-market capitalist in the group here. I wonder what Joseph McCarthy would be thinking about this?

Hey, I buy it even though I don't like it (the cats don't even think it makes good cat litter). But as Rush says, "it's all about money". Scoutldr is correct, the question of popcorn, or fundraising in general, leads to the way the funds are spent/allocated and the efficiency of the organization. The path of the money leads us to every element of the organization. BSA seems to be unfocused. It has elements of a charity and elements of a large business. I think bringing BSA into more of a market-oriented, competitive mode would provide focus and potentially solve many of these problems. It is an admittedly conservative approach, as if there's something wrong with that. But I see many benefits to it, not the least of which is greater latitude for local options and greater efficiency in the organization. If BSA steps up to the plate on this, it could even open more opportunities for the boys. It's worth a try.

Anarchist, That is an extremely distressing situation. Unfortunately, I completely understand what you are writing about. I guess we actually have it a little better at the camp we traditionally attend. Although the waterfront is small (no sailing or powerboats) the staff seem to do a fairly good job on the MBs that they do offer as well as the other aquatic activities. But after that the similarities are striking. I would endorse your proposal with emphasis on any 'knowledge-based' MB, such as the citizenships, all the nature stuff, and a few others. The camps need to either do it right or stop doing it.

scoutldr, I agree that it is the company's discretion. The one I worked for, however, must have done it differently. We received an amount of stock that was based on our salary. Edited part: Thanks, Prairie Scouter, for expanding on that. Bob White, You commented, "Certainly you do not suggest that scouting be structured financially based on what scoutig is like only in your area?" No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that conservative economic principles (market forces and competition) could be applied to BSA with positive results. Regarding the "large percentage" response; I was responding to your claim that "You would lose a large percentage of scouts and units in a pay as you go plan..." You claim that a "large percentage" of scouts and units would be lost. However, your response regarding as few as five families can hardly be evidence of a "large percentage". In order for your original claim to be correct, a "large percentage" of the scouts in BSA would have to be from families that had financial means sufficiently limited that they could not continue as members. I believe that is not so. But even for such families, the units and COs would be free to pursue their own fundraisers for the purpose of funding those, perhaps all, of the member families. But THOSE fundraisers would be local option with local impact. I do agree that all boys should have access. Those with limited means could still be members through another option. BSA (or the council) could merely figure the burden of that charity support into the final costs paid by the rest of us for whatever services we decide to purchase. As an example, I recently paid a visit to a hospital. Looking over the bills, I found items priced at what could pass for '$500 hammers'. When I asked about this, I was told that those who can pay, cover the costs for those who can't. It would work the same way with BSA, only the costs would be recovered through the user fees. If this worked the way it ought to, competition would either cause the council to adjust their other expenses (salaries and personnel, perhaps) to keep the final costs and user fees competitive, or else the customers would be free to go elsewhere for a more competitive product. It's the unseen hand and the magic of the free market. It could make BSA a lean, mean, competitive machine. Why would anyone object to such a conservative approach? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Playing the advocate for that guy with the pointed tail...Hey, does that make me a capitalist? Anyway, I agree with Red Green, I'm not sure that everyone else does, though. And I agree that BSA doesn't share all the characteristics of a for-profit business, but that is my point isn't it? If marketplace mechanisms, forces, and discipline were applied throughout BSA, I think that it not only would help resolve some things but it would also present a great example for the boys. "Don't all employess get the same percentage..." Well, yeah, but the AMOUNT of the share is calculated, roughly, as the percentage that you mention times the salary, which is not equal. Therefore the actual share is different, dependent on the salary of each individual. And as I was told a long, long time ago while I was working in industry, "In this society, you are paid according to what you contribute." I wonder if that makes anyone out there just a wee bit nervous? And I doubt that any of us treat our children exactly equally. I have a boy and a girl and that's just the beginning of the differences. For the most part, we DO provide for their NEEDS which are usually different. Their 'productivity' does figure into this if, by 'productivity' you mean such things as school work, braces, medical needs, extracurricular activities, etc. And although I try to treat all people with equal honesty, etc., I try to give my friends personalized treatment both according to my perception of their needs and interests, as well as to let them know that I notice their unique qualities. Doesn't everyone? "The role of the BSA and the local council is to service all scouts and scouters regardless of what they put in the till, in hopes that their character will cause them to do the right thing and help others as they are helped by others." And I agree. This also is easily translated into "giving to those according to their needs and taking from those according to their abilities." or something along those lines. And although these particular parents may see red when they read those words, they know this unit has a lot to offer their boys as they grow. Or do I inform them of their hypocrisy and invite them to find another program? H'mmm? "...You need only to look at the low income neighborhoods where scouting programs exist." That's nice, but it wouldn't constitute objective evidence that "You would lose a large percentage of scouts and units in a pay as you go plan..." unless a "large percentage" of scouts ARE in those low income neighborhoods. I think not, at least not around here. Scouting overseas...I don't know much about it so I can't address it, sorry. But if we subordinated our business practices here to foreign interests, well, anyone for 'freedom fries'? I could be wrong, I admit.

"You would lose a large percentage of scouts and units in a pay as you go plan..." I'm very certain that there is no way to make that conclusion objectively. Part of the objection to fees for camporees, as I have heard it for example, is the perception that the district (or council) has received donations to fund BSA and THEN asks for camporee fees in addition. It is a matter of fiscal accountability. I am not saying these fees are unjustified, they may be. However, the objections I have heard are being made by persons who question whether the fees are correct, or warranted at all. As it is I have no factual way to respond to their questions except to refer them to the council. I have heard the comment from parents (who are very astute in money matters) that it seems that a few boys who sell most of the popcorn are providing the majority of support to higher levels, support that then comes back to everyone, in various forms, even to those boys who have not participated actively in the fundraiser. These parents are very conservative in their outlook and are suspicious of anything with a 'socialist' overtone. This issue has similarities to the "iterated prisoner's dilemma" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma an interesting model of decisions and interactions in cooperative relationships. [i also have to add that these parents tend to be critical of BSA with a twist that most of the readers in these forums would find curious. They consider BSA to be an example of a 'socialist' organization in which the capable few are 'parasitized' by the needy many for some nebulous common good. In scouting there is little, if any, personal wealth or personal ownership, but rather property and wealth are owned and controlled by a central authority - property that the members are allowed to use and maintain while they serve the authority. The rules are also dictated by the central authority whose hierarchy seems closed to scrutiny - and punishment is given to anyone who dissents openly.] This might be a good topic for a thread or for further discussion if it hasn't been tried before. These individuals are proponents of capitalism and a market approach to everything. I find their arguments persuasive. In a purely market-based approach, the actual cost of services provided by the council (or district) could be determined from past experience and recovered through pay-as-you-go. It is, in fact, the best way to determine those fees. If the council went to this approach and abandoned the fund-raisers (still allowing voluntary donations), it would operate much more like a real business...indeed it IS a business. And the mixed message of asking for donations with one hand while demanding pay for services with the other hand - would be avoided. But even ignoring this last part. I think it would be simpler and more straight-forward to bring market forces into BSA, including competition. I think this would be good for the organization and the boys and units as well. And it would quickly identify the uncompetitive features which would either change or go away. Edited part: typo, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

....waking up....Huh? What?