Yak_Herder

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Some refer to us as the "Mormons". CRANEACE: While I may question the etiquette or relevance of your inquiry, I have no problem answering a direct question truthfully, directly and honestly. I consider turn about fair play. I have some questions of my own to ask you. Do you no longer consider yourself a Catholic? Are you affiliated with another organized religion now? What is your purpose for writing the research paper you mentioned in another thread? Do you intend to publish that information? If so, how? Who is the group you are working with you alluded to in reference to your research? Are you affiliated with any group or organization that seeks to change the policies of the BSA? As long as we are asking questions: Are you homosexual? Would you like to see girls become members of Boy Scouting? All of these questions are equally valid to yours.

To review, CRANEACE asked: "Is there anyone who is willing to share, omiting names of course, situations where BSA or BSA representatives have either misused their position, taken bribes to give out Eagles, removed scouts without just cause, or any other matter that seems discrimmatory, (one is allowed to do it but not another) unfair or unreasonable treatment toward scouts. I'm not talking about gay or agnostic issues. Information is needed for a research paper and will remain confidential." I am perfectly willing to "share". The trouble is, in all of my years in Scouting, some 32 years now, I have never had occassion to observe anything of the kind. I have found Scouters to be wonderfully committed and dedicated individuals, widely varied in talent and ability but all working hard to do three very straightforward things; build character, teach citizenship and encourage fitness. CRANEACE: Will that statement appear in your "research paper" or be quoted on some anti-BSA website?

Yes, Foggy. We're talking about the same book. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I guess I've been referring to it by the wrong title for years now. Thanks for pointing out the correct title for me. I value accuracy! Yakster

Ah, yes. Mike is a good man. I enjoy his stuff and his manner. Page 29 of the most current Uniform and Insignia guide I have (2002-2004, I understand there is a newer on but our Scout Shop won't sell it until the older stuff is gone. That's a rant for another day.) reads: "Shoulder loops, green ribbon, No. 00678, Venturer and Venturing adult, on shoulder epaulets worn on Venturing spruce green uniform shirt. Not to be worn on Boy Scout khaki uniform." If it is any further help, in the Venturing Leader Manual, under the Venturing Reference Guide, on page 332, it reads: "uniforms and insignia (BSA). The BSA green Venturing shirt is available for wear by Venturers and adult leaders. The green Venturing short-sleeve shirt with green shoulder loops will be worn with charcoal gray shorts or long pants as the recommended feild uniform for Venturers. Male and female Venturers should not wear the Boy Scout tan shirt with green shoulder loops. Existing insignia placement policies related to BSA uniforms shall apply to the green Venturing shirt. Crews choosing to wear a patch related to their specialty may do so on the right shoulder sleeve. District, division, council, and national leaders related to Venturing may wear the green, silver, or gold shoulder loops with the green Venturing shirt. Sea Scouts may choose to wear the naughtical-style uniforms using Sea Scouting insignia available from the BSA Supply Division. For further information on BSA uniforms and insignia, contact your BSA local council or refer to the Venturer Handbook. A uniform, if any, is the choice of the crew." Information on uniforming is found on page 6 of the Venturer Handbook. I won't quote it as it is readily available and adds no information germane to this discussion.

Running lights is correct. I thought it was a clever idea. The language reflecting a policy against Venturers wearing the Boy Scout uniform is found in two places: 1. The Glossary section of the Venturing Leader Guide (look under "uniform"), and a better source 2. The Venturing section of the Uniform and Insignia Guide. Look for the paragraph on shoulder loops. BTW, it bans wearing green shoulder loops on the khaki shirt, not the kahki shirt per se. Also, adults can still wear this combo. Call it a shoulder loop loophole. Stepping back a bit, I can see a logic to the policy. Boy Scouts don't wear the Cub Scout uniform either. The BSA didn't do themselves any favor by first allowing (even encouraging) green loops on a khaki Boy Scout uniform shirt and then reversing policy. But, c'est la vie. Anyway, with respect to the "Venturing BSA" patch... I always thought that it was there to as a substitute for or to preclude wearing a patrol patch. Historically, Senior Scouting programs have a program identification patch in that position. CAW anyone? In general I like it, but it is a bit bigger than necessary. Fat Old Guy: I'm with you on the color alignment thought. I ran that same idea by some folks at national a year or two ago and got solidly shot down. A larger, coordinating, guiding hand does not exist. The failure to match service star/tab color to the shoulder loop colors is a classic example of that lack of coordination between departments. So, it got set up incorrectly originally and momentum is felt to be too great to change now.

DDHII: I will. Where do I find their addies? purcelce: That uniform option is expressly forbidden in the BSA uniform and insignia guide. It's a long story. Fat Old Guy: Not the Cracker Jack uniform the youth participants wear. The shoulder boards are worn on the adult leader dress whites. As I understand it, the move to shoulder loops is widely hated. Not only is the look changed, but from a practical standpoint they have a real problem. The navy uniforms the Sea Scouts wear do not have epaulets! How are they going to wear shoulder loops? acco40: NO, you've got the right idea. However, you're missing one important detail. IF a Venturer wears the green/gray uniform they need to do it per the uniform guide. The color of the shoulder loops are defined, therefore, not an option. Interesting tidbit: I saw a ship of Sea Scouts once that were at the time wearing the green/grey uniform rather than their more traditional Cracker Jack or Utility uniform. In the spirit of having a little fun, they choose to wear a red shoulder loop on the left shoulder and a green shoulder loop on the right shoulder. 5 brownie points for the person who can explain why. Hint: It had nothing to with Boy Scouts wearing red and Venturers wearing green.

The proposal is this: change the color of the shoulder loops worn with the forest green Venturing uniform shirt from green to white. The reasons for doing so are simple. 1. Green shoulder loops on the forest green uniform shirt are barely visible, defeating their purpose. 2. The forest green shirt and the particular shade of green chosen for the shoulder loops look poor alongside one another. 3. Due to the evolving uniform policy and despite clear statements to the contrary in the current uniform guide, green shoulder loops are commonly yet incorrectly worn on the khaki Boy Scout uniform shirt. Changing the Venturing shoulder loop color to white addresses each one of these problems. As one of the colors associated with Venturing, yellow (gold) shoulder loop would perhaps be more intuitive. However, everyone knows that color is already utilized. White, the second color on the Venturing flag and a color used liberally on Venturing insignia is the logical choice. It is clearly visible on Venturings forest green uniform shirt, and would contribute to the overall smart, crisp look of a Venturing uniform. White shoulder loops would produce a side benefit: no one would tend to wear white shoulder loops on the khaki Boy Scout uniform. An additional benefit is then made available: with green no longer being used, Venture Patrols would be free to use them without conflict. Those problems solved, we can look for further utility. Other nagging issues could also be addressed. 1. Venturers continue to ask for a form of recognition reflecting accomplishments in Venturing that is neither a hanging medal nor a campaign style bar for everyday, field wear. 2. As part of the Venturing program, Sea Scouting uniform concerns need to be considered. They are wrestling with shoulder boards and navy blue (black) shoulder loops. 3. Shoulder loops employed by other Scouting organizations in the world are more elaborate and in some cases are actually becoming collectible. How would a white shoulder loop address these issues? Well, they dont directly. To do so would require further modification. Shoulder loops are clearly very inexpensive and easily made. Certainly the profit margin is adequate, and as Martha Stewart would say, Thats a good thing. Any proposal being made should preserve that advantage. I understand one of the ideas floating around the Sea Scout community (pun intended) is to add shoulder loops to the uniform and maybe even wear rank pins there. Those are interesting thoughts. I dont know how shoulder loops are to be worn on shirts that bear no epaulets, but I guess that is being worked out. Perhaps a color change to the Venturing shoulder loops invites an opportunity. Sea Scouters could continue to wear the current uniform with shoulder boards, and when wearing Venturings forest green/slate gray uniform could wear the white shoulder loops with the same rank insignia being discussed in those circles pinned through them. The suggestion for white shoulder loops takes on a slightly stronger momentum with that move. Sea Scouters certainly can identify with that color. Finally, why not offer white shoulder loops with a symbol embroidered on them representing bronze, gold and silver award recognition? No pins, no fuss, and they dont get lost in the field. The supply division stocks a few more items, so inventory rises a bit, but they are cheap and in the end it means increased sales. How can they refuse that? Embroidery is inexpensive and if done well can add greatly to the perceived value of the item. The swappers at Jamb-o-rees will love it. Yet again, white proves itself a good choice as it is an excellent color for the background material.

NJ, you made more than one "factual error", my friend. For example, you stated: "On the gay issue, it's a bunch of people, myself included, who want to IMPROVE the BSA -- and by the way, we're right." You're right? Thats an assertion that demands a demonstration of proof. Please provide it. In an earlier post you brought up the infamous nine councils. There is more to the story than your presented. While those signing the petition held significant positions of authority within their respective councils (well, eight of them did anyway), the job description of those positions do not include serving as some sort of elected delegate to a group that determines national policy. They appointed themselves to that task and assumed authority that was not theirs. Furthermore, isnt the fact that only nine councils relevant? Last time I checked there were several hundred councils. Frustrated by being in a decided minority (both in and out of Scouting) and with the SCOTUS decision at play, they got together and cooked up a rather un-Scout-like media stunt for the annual meeting held in Boston (not coincidentally one of the nine councils). To a degree it worked. In the end they did more harm than good. We saw a replay of the same in Philadelphia (again, another of the nine councils). It didnt happen in New Orleans last year (what do you know, not one of the nine councils). Watch for some renegade to try it again next year in Chicago (yes, another of the nine councils). All of these stunts amount to nothing more than a red-herring. Unfortunately, the media has a greater interest in a hot story than facts and fail to understand this. It must be kept firmly in mind that local councils dont make these decisions. The petition is meaningless. The National Executive Board makes decisions like these for a number of very strong reasons. Here are two: 1. National issues require a national solution or the integrity of the organization suffers. Denying this invalidates the justification for a national organization. Defining and protecting the public image of Scouting is very much the responsibility of the national council. 2. Local council boards are made up of individuals whose decision-making process is dominated by the need to balance a budget. Financial pressures have a way of corrupting the better angels of our natures. The National Executive Board is made up of representatives of the organizations who sponsor Scouting. They are, in effect, Scouting. They, and only they own the right to define this policy. If it were to be kicked down to a council level, then the CORs must be the ones to make the decision, not the local council committee and certainly not one guy from the committee going off on his own. Two opinions about the motivations for those wishing change have been acknowledged in this thread. One suggests that the goal to change Scouting to allow homosexual membership is an attempt to destroy Scouting. I find that to be far-fetched. Another suggests it is a noble effort to improve Scouting. I dont buy that either. The purpose behind the initiative to change the BSAs membership policies does not take a genius to decipher. The purpose is very, very clear. Pro-gay organizations targeted the BSA, not because they were interested in merely gaining membership, but through challenging the BSA publicly they were able to garner a great deal of media attention. This is the real prize. It was a no lose proposition. If they gained membership status, those few who were truly interested in the change for the sake of the change would be happy and they would gain some momentum in the public eye. If they lost their bid, they still walk away with a considerable amount of exposure and spin it to where they would look like the victim. The BSA was a pawn in a big game. No one who supports what was done can convince me that they have the best interests of Scouting at heart. You cannot serve in a position of leadership within the BSA, support these measures and claim to be trustworthy. You cannot contribute to the media circus and claim to be loyal. You cannot be an avowed homosexual in Scouting and claim to be obedient. Without these qualities of character, you may claim membership in Scouting, but you are not a much of what being a Scout stands for.

Wonderful questions, Zahnada. snip Do you consider a person like me to be an undesirable element in scouting? I know that none of you know me personally, but you know my views. While I would never discuss these opinions in front of the boys, it is very obvious that I do not agree with the BSA policy on a number of issues. /snip Actually, I didnt know your views before this morning. I took a several hours and read the stuff you have posted over the last few months in order to understand them better. You express yourself very well. I appreciate someone who is clear thinking, articulate and skilled at debate. I differ with your conclusions, but you are each of these things. Frankly, that pleases me. I cant be certain what a person like me is meant to convey, but I have to assume it means someone who is a member of the BSA and opposes the policy regarding homosexuals. Ill base my response on that assumption. I live in an area dominated by what the article that heads this thread describes as liberal secular humanists. I am much more the bible-based conservative. We have the usual spectrum of Scouters in our council, maybe more diverse than most. San Jose in particular is wonderfully blessed with a diversity of race, religion and culture. I enjoy this area and the people that live here immensely. There is one notable exception, an ASM I met briefly at a Wood Badge reunion. Making conversation, I asked him about a knot that he was wearing that I didnt recognize. I no more than got the question out of my mouth before I figured out for myself what it must stand for and regretted having made the inquiry. It looked something like the Eagle Scout award knot, only with a rainbow of colors. He explained to me that he disagreed with the BSA policy on homosexuals and this was a form of protest. I believe myself to be a person who trusts and respects others without first requiring supporting evidence. I very easily engage others in conversation and enjoy getting to know them. Everyone has his or her quirks. Thats part of the fun. This man was a pleasant enough fellow, but showed a lack of character that I found very distasteful. On a day when I was to be awarded my own Wood Badge beads and in a day when the BSA faces the opposition it does, I frankly didnt have much interest in hearing it from one of our own. I didnt challenge him. I uncharacteristically just let it go and moved on to other events. Its been some time now and I still havent resolved for myself what the appropriate response should have been. That bothers me. Its hard to determine where to draw the line between being nice and not hurting peoples feelings and standing up for what you believe. I really respect those who possess the diplomatic skill to do both. I feel very strongly about this issue. By this I mean the issue of a Scouters character. The fact is the BSA has a policy with respect to homosexual membership. What was once understood has become necessary to define. It was established in proper order once clarification was demanded. You cannot belong to the BSA, hold opposing views, and still have integrity. You cannot be loyal to Scouting and fail to support it, or worse, work to subvert it. You cannot be obedient and not follow duly established rules. You cannot be consider yourself trustworthy and violate the trust others show you. This man was for the most part helpful, friendly, courteous, kind and cheerful. I would assume he is thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. But by demonstrating disobedience and disloyalty, he cannot be trusted. He does not posses integrity. He is not the example of character I wish my son to model himself after. There are honest, above board means of affecting change within the BSA. Those advocating change have failed in that arena. That failure does not justify the adoption of tactics of civil disobedience, however mild. I can neither support nor respect those who engage in it. I also draw a distinction between the question of homosexual membership of youths and adults. Both contradict the stated ideals, but the youth are in their formative years. Were in the business of shaping and guiding that development. Excluding them would be utter foolishness. So long as they are interested in learning what we teach, they are welcome. Should they decide to take a different path, integrity would demand they re-evaluate their membership. An adult who truly cares will continue to be a part of that young mans life whether a Scout or not. Adult membership is a different matter. The great majority of and adult leaders function in the organization is to be a role model and mentor. Therefore, their personal ideals are subject to review. It is chaos to allow a leader to remain a member and a leader of an organization if his or her viewpoints are in opposition to it. It is not a question of diversity. It is not a matter of discrimination. It is stupidity. snip If you had the choice, would you want me in your troop and interacting with your son? /snip The question is simply too hypothetical to respond to adequately. The Scouting units I am involved with are sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You would certainly be welcome. We do, however, stand for something and expect those who join with us to adopt those standards as well. That is largely the purpose of the Church. The question then becomes, Can/Will you support the policies of the chartering organization and be able to use Scouting in a manner that advances its (the chartered organizations) goals? Our religious beliefs clearly reflect on our viewpoint of human sexuality. It is indeed obvious that you disagree with the BSA policy. I believe you when you state that you would never discuss these issues in front of the boys. However, teen-agers are remarkably adept at discernment. You may be more able to mask your views than I give you credit for, but dont you think it would also be obvious to the boys? snip So, to rephrase the question, do you personally have any problem with me as a scouter? /snip No, but given your views on this issue you might have a problem with us.

I cannot swallow the argument that members of the BSA who support those trying to affect this change love the BSA and want what is best for it. If their motives were pure, if they truly loved the BSA, they would do it no harm. The pressure they are bringing to bear is not some kind of medicine that must be taken by the BSA in order for it to get better. It is destructive. It is inhibiting the ability of the organization to fulfill its mission. Rather than manipulating the media by feeding it falsehoods and fodder for the sensationalism that is craved, rather than adding to the stress on already tight budgets faced by councils around the nation, rather allowing volunteers and professionals already short on time to focus their efforts on further building the program and helping boys, rather than attempting to make right seem wrong, they would go their own way and create a new organization that follows their ideals. The fact that they havent is all the evidence needed to demonstrate that they are not interested in the well-being of Scouting. They are interested in advancing their cause at the expense of Scouting. Scouters who are playing both sides of this issue, make no mistake; you are being used.

Am I the only one who noticed that by taking the position Merlyn has, he has given evidence in support of the article being correct in its assertion?

A press releaase from the National Council website: "The Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts of America has issued a statement affirming that it will carry out all the policies as set forth by the National Council. The council made this statement to clarify any misconceptions that may have arisen during the BSA National Annual Meeting held May 28-30. Earlier in May, the Cradle of Liberty Council submitted a non-discrimination disclosure statement to the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania. This non-discrimination disclosure addressed the use of United Way funds in the Learning for Life program. These are the only funds the council receives from the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania. The Learning for Life program, working through schools, businesses, and other community organizations, delivers values-based programs to thousands of children. Learning for Life is not a membership program, and selection of the adults who deliver the program is up to the sponsoring institution. Cradle of Liberty Council President David Lipson has expressed disagreement with the BSA's membership policies, as is his right. BSA members are free to hold their own opinions, but we ask that they respect the values of the organization and abide by its policies, which they have agreed to by becoming members."

CptRon, I appreciate your zeal, but suggest to you that your proposed solution is misguided. Let's step back a minute and look at what is going on here. There is a deliberate process being employed by gay rights activists. Individuals working to secure special privelages for gay and lesbians have set their sights on the Boy Scouts of America for a very simple reason; it is a fight they can not lose and the BSA can't possibly win. You gotta give 'em credit for their strategic planning. My assertion is not that they will inevitably gain membership. That is not their main objective. What they want is media attention enabling them to change public opinion. Their goal extends well beyond the BSA. Whether they affect change within the BSA or not, they will get headlines. Those headlines are a victory. The BSA, on the other hand, cannot win. They either fight and get bloodied or capitulate and lose their integrity. Firing the board and replacing them would virtually guarantee a media circus. No, the right move is to do what was done in Boston and work things out in private as quietly as possible. I understand the next year's national meeting will be held in Chicago. Hopefully the professionals will be proactive and not get caught flat-footed like this year. This isn't rocket science. Boston was one of the original nine councils petitioning national for a change of policy with respect to homosexuals. Philadelphia was another. Chicago was a third.

This thread has gone stale, but I just saw it in the archives and felt compelled to comment. For the record, I am Mormon (note spelling ) and from what I read, ExperiencedUniform's descriptions were pretty close. ASM1's are, well... not so accurate. Touching on a few of the topics mentioned: *Sunday Camping Members of the Church are NOT forbidden from camping on the Sabbath. However, Church policy does preclude the Scouting _unit_ from sponsoring camping on Sunday. There are likely more reasons for this, but I can think of at least two. First, LDS young men twelve and older are normally priesthood holders. As such, they have specific priesthood duties to attend to, especially on Sundays. They would not be able to serve in their priesthood responsibilities if away camping on a regular basis. Second, the absence of this policy would (and did before it was instituted) result in sending a mixed message. The Church teaches weekly participation in Sunday meetings as a _part_ of keeping the Sabbath Day holy. It should not be expected to compete with it's own Scouting unit promoting a contrasting viewpoint. The Sabbath is less about what you shouldn't be doing and more about what could be done. Contrary to what was expressed, Eleven-year-old Scouts in LDS units _do_ camp. We share the BSA's goal of First Class/first year. Three campouts are required to achieve the rank of First Class. As such, Church policy specifically allows for this activity. In fact, it encourages it. LDS weeks at Scout Camp are generously offered by many councils. This normally amounts to a week with a compressed schedule eliminating the need to camp on Sunday. When offered, they are greatly appreciated. Anyone unit is welcome to attend that same week. And, sometimes LDS units attend during "regular" weeks for various reasons. *Membership All boys (8-11) and young men (12-18) in the U.S. are expected to participate in Scouting. But remember, we are a worldwide Church. The same opportunity is not available in most countries. We are fortunate that conditions allow us to participate in the U.S. Like any sponsor, we use the Scouting program to advance the goals we have as a church for our youth, but this should not be interpreted as exclusionary. LDS units are NOT limited to LDS youth. Friends and neighbors are encouraged to join and we welcome them when they do. To be honest, our recruiting skills are generally poor. With a regular supply of new boys coming in, we sometimes take membership for granted and fail to properly foster an interest within each young man ensuring that he is excited about joining. We could do better in this area. *Relaxed requirements and Merit Badge Classes (Pow Wows, Midways, Madness, whatever you want to call them) I hate 'em. Earning merit badges as a group, be it during Troop Meeting or a special event is a lousy way to do it in my book. On the other hand, our kids are worked pretty hard. They do Webelos in one year, not two. Even still, most earn their Arrow of Light. Then, they get pushed pretty hard to earn First Class in a year. After that, they work at a quick pace to Eagle. Remember, they will be Venturers at 16 and the emphasis for Scouting awards will be greatly reduced. None of this is an excuse for failing to meet the requirements. Having been in Scouting for several decades and more than a few councils, I see what I feel is too much emphasis on advancement in LDS units, but no significant differences in quality. *Council or District dominance If you live in one of the three councils in Utah (or a couple in Idaho or Arizona) and are not LDS, expect to be in the minority, but don't think of it as some kind of conspiracy. It's simply demographics. Everyone is a minority somewhere. This does not mean the minoritys needs should be dismissed. Rather than lament the situation, revel in the opportunities. Membership, Money and Manpower are not the highest priorities of the officers and professionals. Program is the focus for the majority of the year. In my home council (Utah National Parks), FOS is normally completed in a month during the Fall _prior_ to the budget year. Camps are well equipped and maintained. Council and district events are normally very large. With a regular infusion of new Scouts practically guaranteed and progression from Cubs to Scouts to Venturing almost automatic, recruiting is not a driving force. There are thousands of Scouters to fill district and council positions. Drawing from a population that large leads to a leadership pool of a very high quality. You can throw me into that briar patch anytime. *"Mormon" The name Mormon is indeed taken from "The Book of Mormon". It is subtitled "Another Testament of Christ". Like the bible, it is actually an abridgement of writings by a number of prophets by another prophet named Mormon. Along with the Bible, we consider it scripture. Originally, the nickname "Mormon" was considered a derogatory term, but those days are long past and a negative sentiment is not normally associated with it today. I've never been offended by it. The actual name is the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". That's kind of long. Most folks want to shorten it up by using the name Mormon or LDS. We prefer the whole name to a nickname because the other forms tend to leave out "Jesus Christ" and it is important to us that others know we worship Christ.

I agree with Bob White's assertion that this issue must not be decided based on membership numbers or the balance sheet. But let's go beyond that. tj's next sentance was also important. tjhammer wrote: "That's not an opinion share by the BSA Chief Scout Executive, who I remind you said that the policy would have to change if suddenly BSA started losing "lots" of members over it." As you so aptly pointed out with earlier comments regarding statistics, we need to "Read it critically, though, and make sure to do the reverse calculations in your head..." I agree with that assertion. We should apply that technique to the Scout Exec's reported statement. Doing so reveals the fact that EVEN MORE members and financial support would be lost if the policy were to be changed. Whichever your basis you choose for making the decision of what is best for the BSA, morality or numbers, both lead to the same conclusion. The only reason to pursue a change is not the improvement of Scouting but to gain a foothold in the reshaping of society.

Upon returning from the National Conference, the professionals from our council reported that the news in Philadelphia was a total surprise to everyone. National leaders had no indication the statement would be released. Conversations with the Cradle of Liberty Council professionals revealed that they were equally surprised. Volunteer Scouters from the council in attendance were also unaware of the policy. According to the Scouters from our council, a second article was printed the next day countering the reported position. I have not been able to find any such article. Does anyone out there in Philly have any additional information?

What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? The distinguishing factor is certainly not your personal viewpoint on the contested issue. Terrorists are those who act illegally in attempt to change public opinion and affect change while other legal and acceptable methods exist. Freedom fighters have no other recourse and resort to illegal measures because there is no other way to eliminate tyranny or oppression. The British considered our founding fathers terrorists as they fought to overthrow the British Monarchy's control in America. They are now viewed as heroic figures that forged a new nation. The same cannot be said about Philadelphias Cradle of Liberty Council's actions (savor the irony buried in there). In February 2002, the National Council released a clear position statement on this matter. Leaders of the Boston, Philadelphia and seven other councils had been busily petitioning National to change the policy and had been soliciting the support of other councils for some time. The press release was an unambiguous answer to that effort. The resent action was nothing more than a media stunt designed to garner headlines and re-ignite the controversy. Way to go guys [sarcasm]. A few salient points to this whole mess must be kept in mind: 1. The signatories to the initial petition were Council President/Chairs, but no indication was given that they had authority to speak for or had solicited the support of their council membership in this matter. One wasnt even a current officer. 2. Even if they had their councils support, the local councils have no authority in this matter. As I understand it, the National Executive Board (not even the professionals in Irving) determine such policies. It is organized this way for a number of very good reasons. Scouting is and should be a program that reflects the ideals and needs of its chartered organizations. The National Executive Board is made up of representatives of those very groups. Council Boards are far too vulnerable to local financial pressures to be trusted to act without significant bias. When the system works properly, the board would answer to the CORs anyway. Lets face facts, the majority of groups sponsoring Scouting, those who actually use the program, do not support this change. The majority of them (not the necessarily the BSA, an important distinction) still consider homosexual behavior to be immoral and a conflict with the definition of the morally straight ideal. 3. Each of the nine councils who sponsored the petition I am familiar with were large, metropolitan, politically liberal areas. The BSA is a big fat media target. You figure it out. 4. We saw a similar action by the Minuteman Council (another of the nine councils sponsoring the petition) when the National Conference was held in their area two years ago. It is an opportunistic move to get the issue in the headlines and that is the goal. Phillys move is a tired repeat of this same move. 5. For the BSA, this is a national issue that requires nationally uniform policy. It is not a matter for the local councils to determine for themselves what they will do. Neither is it a matter for individual units to determine. Units do not operate in isolation. The Jamb-o-ree aspect of Scouting is important. When coming together, it is essential that all members share a common understanding of the ideals we profess to teach. The Cradle of Liberty Council was wrong for doing what they did. There are other methods for voicing their desire. They and others have tried them and lost. I respect the tenacity demonstrated, but consider their resent actions to be little more than a savy attempt to grab some media attention. The majority is not with them and they have no authority in the matter to begin with. Perhaps most importantly, they have demonstrated a willingness to violate the very principles we profess to champion. The Scout Law was broken. There is no honor in their disobedient, disloyal misuse of trust.

Shoulder loops on the spruce green Venturing uniform shirt should be changed to white. If you're going to have them, they should be a contrasting color. The currectn green on green is a lousy choice. This would also allow Venture Patrol members to wear the green shoulder loops on the khaki Scouting uniform without conflict.

awhoooooo! Doug Livingston "I used to be a wolf..."

No, that's it exactly. The picture doesn't show the whole setting. I forget now what the man and woman represent. It was something like "Truth" & "Justice". The woman is holding a flame in her fingertips. I can't recall what the man is holding. It has a very heroic tone. Opposing critique noted, I thought it was very well done and a significant tribute. The location alone is an indication of the degree of honor being given the organization. By the way, the closest building to it is the Commerce Building which is also shown in another pic. The facade pictured in its foto is seen in the background.

I can add some information. I visited Washington, D.C. a few weeks ago and made a point of finding the statute. It sits in a very impressive location; on the National Mall south of the White House, between the south lawn and the Washington Monument. It was erected in commemeration of Scouting's anniversary. There is a boy in full uniform (50's era) if front of a man and woman. The man and woman have sort of a mythical look and while covered, are not fully clothed. A fountain/pool sits in front of it with an inscription circumscribing the water. It is very well done and quite impressive.

I fully support a move to both improve the quality and reduce the price of uniform items. Uniforms are an essential element of the Scouting Movement. They must be available to all. I don't know what National takes as a "cut", or what the local Council may get, but that portion should be zero. We can fund the BSA through better methods than a surcharge on uniforms. Please, someone, take a look at outdoor gear sold nationwide. The difference in quality is dramatic. I would support maintaining the current level of quality if the price reflected that quality. But, even then I would hope they offered something that was of higher quality in addition so that I had a choice. The current shirt is so thin and poorly tailored that they often look sloppy. The patches add some weight, the fabric sags. Let's not even talk about how bad an Eagle badge looks hanging there. It's disgraceful. That brings up another issue that upsets me. The quality of the awards has dropped to a horrible level. Compare the original medals to those presented today. They look like dime store knock-offs. I would hope that no boy works for and earns an Eagle Award simply to have the badge. But dangit, that badge should be a reflection of the sacrifice and work he put into earning it. The current issue is downright embarrassing.