CalicoPenn

I see nothing wrong with letting the boys run off into a ditch on occasion - if the occasion calls for it. Part of being boy-led is that failures are part of the lesson - and there should be no reason to avoid a major failure (a cancelled outing due to lack of planning by the PLC) for the sake of "the program". I'm not suggesting that the adults shouldn't be stepping in to assist if the PLC is making an effort and is getting bogged down, nor am I suggesting the adults shirk their share of the responsibilities (tour permits, drivers, etc.). What I'm suggesting is that if the PLC isn't planning and prepping for a trip, hasn't made a plan beyond "Arrive, Set-up, Hang-out, Leave", that it's prefectly alright to announce to the PLC that this is unacceptable, and a waste of the Adult's time, and that if this is the entirety of the plan, the adults simply will not be available and the trip will be cancelled. I suggest giving them plenty of notice, and I see nothing wrong with the Scoutmaster announcing a couple of Troop meetings before the trip is scheduled that because the PLC has failed to properly plan the trip, it is, for the moment, cancelled unless the PLC prepares a proper plan by the next meeting. Either the PLC will get the trip planned (through pressure from their charges) or they won't and will try to call your "bluff". Just don't make it a bluff - stick to it. I'll bet you won't have to do this more than once. Learing to get out of the ditch is a pretty important lesson in itself.

Ok - I'm a little bit confused, mostly because I'm unsure just what is meant by "organizing an outing". Does it mean the PLC doesn't get together to put together a calendar of events and outings? To me, the solution to this is easy - if the PLC doesn't put together a calendar of events and outings, there will be no events and outings because the adults won't plug the gap. Does it mean they can't come up with new ideas? The solution is to provide them with resources - it could be as simple as a Road Atlas showing all the state and national parks in a set area (100 miles radius? Maybe 200 miles of interstate driving two times a year - not including Summer Camp?). I know from my home, the Road Atlas shows a number of locations for camping and hiking in Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana within a two-hour drive - and I live near Chicago. There are books in just about every state that list watchable wildlife sites, or "50 day hikes" that can be used as a reference. Here's a suggestion that could be maintained by the Librarian. Create files of interesting places to visit - as Scouts and their families go through visitor information rest stops, pick up brochures of places that might be interesting for a visit and file them (I used a milk crate). During the planning session, haul out the files and spend a little time just thumbing through them. The internet can be great, but sometimes its more helpful to hold a brochure talking about an intersting natural area, or a museum that might start the thinking about where to go. Does it mean they won't plan the activities, and put together the menus and duty rosters, for the trip? This is where the Scoutmaster simply states that if there is no plan (written) for the trip, they trip won't go because the Scoutmaster won't ask any adults to give up their time for a weekend of hanging out in a campsite doing nothing. Does it mean they can't or won't do the logistics of the trip? Though this is certainly part of organizing a trip, logisitics handling is one of the things the Committee does to assist the program. Making sure there are enough adults to attend and drivers to drive should be the committee's responsibility. Making reservations at a State Park? Again, committee (not many state parks will accept a reservation for a group campsite from a 15 year old SPL). The SPL, his PLC, and the Troop Officers (Quartermaster, etc.) should be busy planning the activities, and making sure they and their equipment is prepared to go on the trip.

"It seems like there were three different people (with strong personalities) who had three very different positions on the way things should run and argued the entire meeting. Each of these guys is bucking to be the next SPL in the coming elections" I think the above is the whole key - what you have is three people who just auditioned in a way in front of their peers for the SPL role. It doesn't really matter at this point if a final plan was developed (after all, as someone else mentioned, your current SPL will be aging out fairly quickly and the new SPL should have a major role in future plans). What does matter is what the rest of the folks on the PLC thought of the direction each of these individuals might take. Now I realize that this isn't a campaign, but you can be sure that the others may be thinking about the meeting and deciding who they think would be the best SPL - and you can be sure they'll make that opinion known to their Patrols. The one meeting you should definitely stay for is the first meeting of the new SPL - this is the time to start the mentoring process, and it's a time to make sure there are no sour grapes hanging on the vine.

"Pay for her to be Den leader" - I read this as the Pack paid her registration fees - some Packs do pay the registration fees for Den Leaders. What makes this man a "problem leader"? Has he stolen money or equipment from the Pack? Has he been uncooperative with the other adult leaders? Has he made promises and failed to keep them? His domestic issue, where charges were dropped, is a personal matter, and has nothing to do with the Pack. I'm not surprised that the family is leaving your Pack - the fact that someone felt it necessary to go to the Pack committee and air out the families laundry would be reason enough, even if the person doing so thought s/he was doing the right thing. It's likely that they left with a mixture of anger and embarrassment - anger that the Pack Committee felt the righteous need (and I mean this in the negative) to suspend him and embarrassement over the entire incident itself. I'm sure they want to spend as little time with you as you want to spend with them at this point. Say nothing - if asked, speak of his Scouting record - leave the personal out - it's none of their business, and it's none of yours anymore either.

If I'm understanding the question correctly, the question isn't about the policy at all - the question is why is it ok to use the definition of the word but not the word itself. And that's one tough question to answer. I think I would explain that sometimes people just get hung up over words and that sometimes we have to make adjustments in what and how we communicate just to navigate through the jetties of life, and that alhough we may have changed how we express our thoughts, we are still being truthful. It's the late teens where these questions start to come up - and the black-and-white thinking starts to change, with the ability to think in shades of gray more fully developed by the early 20's. It doesn't happen overnight - I think it is probably the longest period of emotional and moral development - from about 16 to about 25. It's interesting to note just how noticeable the developmental differences between freshmen and seniors in high school - freshman and sophmores still see the world in the 7th & 8th grade black-and-white way. By junior year, that just starts to change - especially if their is work-for-pay involved. By senior year - it becomes really noticeable - seniors tend to become more mellow, and more supportive of each other and other people.

I called him Mr. Schroeder. Now that I'm 47, I call him....Mr. Schroeder. One of the few persons I called Mr. as a youth that I still call Mr.

Well sure, the BSA could stop chartering all the ELCA units over the ELCA's new policy - the BSA doesn't need the 6th largest sponsor of Scout Units representing over 122,000 youth. I guess they'll finally be able to merge all the councils in Minnesota to one super council now that the Lutherans will be out. But then again, as I recall, there is something in the partnership agreement about how the Chartered Organizaton runs units consistent with their own standards, not just the BSA's.

The Institutional Head is not a registered adult leadership position in the BSA - at least it's not listed on the Adult Leader Application. Since IH is not a registered leadersgip position, there is no conflict with the BSA. Now for the real ticklish part. The Institutional Head (or the groups board) appoints the Chartered Organization Representative - which is, according to the Adult Leader Application, a registered leadership position in the BSA. Let's toss this hypothetical out there. What if the openly gay institutional head of a congregation, who is in a committed relationship, and whose church sponsors the biggest and most successful Pack and biggest and most successful Troop in the District (or even COuncil) - the units that are stars of the popcorn fund-raising program, that consistently delivers high FOS donations - what if this pstor appoints his life partner as the Chartered Organization Representative because his life partner happened to be an Eagle Scout and would do the units a world of good? Does anyone reallt think the Council would risk losing star units over an openly gay COR? As for the God discussion, sometimes I imagine that there will be this huge waiting room full of Catholics, Lutherans, Muslims, Mormons waiting to get through the pearly gates who get increasingly frustrated when they see Athiests, Deists, Buddhists, Wiccans, Agnostics, and Unitarians waltz right in without so much as a by your leave until someone finally asks the question "Why?" and God answers - "Because they're the only ones that got it right - don't kill, don't steal, treat each other with respect - everything else was some clown putting words in my mouth"

I guess I missed the point of the discussion - I didn't think we were talking about whether the BSA sould accept homosexuals. I thought the question was what should the BSA do about the ELCA now that the ELCA has promulgated a rule allowing gay people in a committed relationship to be pastors. I stand by my answer - the BSA should do nothing. It should be noted that the ELCA has allowed gay pastors for a while now - but the rule was they must be celibate. Something I'm curious about is that the reporting I've read says that the ELCA's new rule is that only gay people in a committed relationship may become pastors - that seems to mean that a single, celibate gay person can no longer be a pastor in the ELCA? Is there anyone who is part of the ELCA that can clarify? Perhaps I misspoke about the Mormon Church - I was under an obviously false impression that the Mormon Church didn't become paticularly active in the BSA until the 1970's, mostly because of the folderol in my council in the late 1970's about Mormon Church units - and it had nothing to do with racism.

Actually, there is an official answer - and its a very simple answer at that. Merit Badge requirements are completed when the Merit Badge Counselor signs off on the requirement. Unless and until the Merit Badge Counselor signs off on the requirement, it isn't done. The Merit Badge Counselor has discretion as to whether to accept previous work or not. Technically, even with the Camping Merit Badge, the Merit Badge Counselor can say the time clock starts when the Scout meets with the Merit Badge Counseler to start the work (though in practice, especially with such badges as Camping, the MBC is more likely than not to accept campouts done before the badge was started - if they didn't, the market will decide never to use that person again). The other piece to this is that once a Merit Badge Counselor has signed off on a requirement, it is completed - even if the Scout moves on to another MBC. While the new MBC may review the work, making the Scout do the work over is not in keeping with the way the Merit Badge program works, and the MBC should be taken aside for a friendly (or not so friendly) cup of coffee to discuss. If a climbing merit bacge counselor at camp receives blue cards with partials signed off by a properly registered Merit Badge Counselor for that badge, and refuses to accept the partial, I would be having a very pointed talk with the Camp Director and the Council Advancement Chair with an expectation that the policy would change - immediately.

It seems that the question is "Now what the heck do we do, when one of our largest sponsors allows gay pastors". My answer would be for the BSA to do the same thing the BSA did when the Catholic Church was involved in a major scandal over pedophilia - Nothing. My answer would be for the BSA to do the same thing the BSA did when the Mormon Church first started charteing units - much to the very vocal chagrin of many volunteer scouters - Nothing. I doubt that this is going to change anything to any significant degree in the BSA - though at the very least, it should stop the BSA from being hypocritical about who can and can't wear religious awards. Should - but again, as I believe the BSA will do nothing, as it has in the past, then nothing will change.

There is still a lot of misinformation about the Canadian health care system in this country because let's be honest, US Americans don't really care what happens in other countries as long as it doesn't affect us. So what is Canadian health care? It is Universal, Single Payer insurance - but unfortunately, US Americans just don't know what that means. Most of us believe that means that Canadian health care is run by the Government of Canada. It's not. Universal, Single Payer is health care coverage offered by single political entities. In Canada's case, the Single Payer is the Provinces. Each Province has it's own health care coverage plan, with it's own rules for eligibility and coverages. Put simply, the Province of Ontario may cover medical expenses that the Province of Quebec does not - and vice-versa. Nor does coverage automatically follow you if you move from one Province to another. Move from Vancouver, British Columbia to Toronto, Ontario, and there is a wait time to get coverage under Ontario's health plan. Granted, it's a minimal wait time (3 months) but there is still a wait time. Because the health care plans are provided by the Provinces, there may be some restrictions. Most of us in the US who have health insurance can travel freely in our country with the knowledge that if we need emergency care, we can go to any hospital anywhere and be covered. The same is true in Canada. What's also true about Canadian coverage and our private coverage is that if you need non-emergency surgery (like arthroscopic surgery to a knee, for instance), you can't just decide to go to another province for surgery without prior approval - unless it's an emergency, you need to get most of your care in the Province that you live and have insurance in. There is private insurance available too - typically it's supplemental insurance. It generally covers procedures not covered by a Province, and medications (which are pretty much universally not covered by a Province). (Oh, and insurance - either public or private - won't cover plastic surgery - but you can finance it though a medical finance company). It often covers dental insurance - which is also not offered by Provincial health coverage plans. Like private plans in the US, and like Medicare in the US, most Provincial plans won't cover experimental treatments, or high risk treatments. In the case of the leukemia patient, there was no blood match donor available, despite a broad search for one - the probability of success dive bombs when no blood match donor is available. It's very important to note that the article clearly states it was the Canadian DOCTORS - not the provincial health insurance plan, that said they wouldn't treat - based on their medical knowledge of the risks with non-blood match donors. The provincial health plan agreed to pay for this young man to come to the US for treatment - which widened the potential pool for a blood match donor. The article does not make clear what the treatment was in the US - its possible that the cancer center treated him using marrow donated from a non-blood donor - its also possible that the cancer center found a blood match donor which could have made the difference between success and failure - we just don't know. Are there wait times for non-essential medical treatments in Canada? Yes - but this is related to the number of doctors and medical facilities in Canada compared to the US, and not the their health care coverages. Canada only has a population of about 34 million - in a country about the same size as ours - they're going to have less surgeons and less health care facilities, and most of them are near population centers. Canada is still mostly rural - there are still traveling specialists in Canada. Doctors, Surgeons, etc. still work for themselves, or hospitals or clinics in Canada, just like in the US. A rural area may have a small hospital with a few ER Physicians who may be able to do rudimentary surgeries, but still airlift patients needing complicated emergency surgeries out to other facilities (just like in the US), and these hospitals often have surgeons who will travel in and spend a month doing non-emergency surgeries by appointment - have to wait 18 months for knee surgery? More than likely its because there won't be an orthopedic surgeon at your local hospital for another 18 months. You could travel to the big city and get the surgery earlier but if it's an outpatient surgery (as arthroscopic knee surgery often is), you're stuck with all the expenses of travel and staying in a hotel. I'd wait 18 months too.

Yep - a compass and map is great - if you bother to use it. Most people bring it with them into the woods and don't think about using it until the get lost - by then it's too late, unless you're using it to keep yourself moving in a straight line. GPS is a toy - It's great if you have a sat phone and get lost - you can call someone up and give them the coordinates of where the GPS says you are - just don't panic when you hear someone 1,500 yards away looking for you and not being able to find you right away. It's also great if you have a route mapped out with GPS coordinates (Backpacker Magazine publishes such waypoint finding routes every month). The vast majority of people's wilderness experience is on marked or blazed trails. Even the wilderness trail systems in our national parks and forests are trail systems - you may need a backcountry permit but you still follow a pre-existing trail. What's missing is woods sense. When people get turned around, they tend to start panicking, then forget even rudimentary "rules" let alone tidbits they may have picked up but never thought they'd have to use. How many people think about following an obvious game trail if lost knowing the liklihood is that it will lead to a water source - a lake that might serve as a landmark, or a stream that can be followed and serve as an anchor point? Heck, how many people even know this is an option? There was a thread about a Scout who was "rescued" from Mt. Washington. He hurt his ankle and remembering he was near some shorter trails he had hiked before, set out for those trails. In the summer, it's highly likely he would have found those other trails easily. In the spring, it was a bit more difficult. When he was "rescued", he had abandoned trying to climb down the mountain and started heading up the mountain - a wise move because he knew that at the summit of the mountain was human habitation - and a road leading back down. I give that Scout a lot of credit for remembering that, and being calm enough to act on the knowledge he had. Today, in the continental United States, there are very few places where some kind of road in not within a ten mile walk - as long as one can keep on a straight line course, you will find your way to civilization eventually.

Well I'm shocked - shocked I say - I never thought I'd see the day when Trev, using code words, would come out of the closet as a beret lover. It's pretty obvious with the use of the word "fruity". After all, we all know that the best things in life are fruity. Examples: Best dish of any kind that is made in a dutch oven? Apple (or peach or cherry) Cobbler. Can't get much fruitier than that. Best drink for a scorching hot day? Lemonade - made with a glorious yellow fruit. Best non-chocolate candy? Even has the word right in the name: Good and Fruity. Two words that naturally go together. Yep - its obvious, Trev has secretly longed for the return of the Red Beret - the most useful hat the BSA ever approved.

When does it go to far? When it leads to verbal or physical abuse, when it leads to threats of physical abuse. That's when it goes to far. If you're uncomfortable referring to a gay person as gay, then call that person a homosexual. Seems thats what most so-called "Christian" evangelical pastors call gay people - "homosexuals". You might want to say it in the same breathless manner that the evangelical pastors use - it's so much more sensuous that way. If you're gay, and you just can't bring yourself to use the term straight to refer to breeders (ooops - naughty me, using a derogatory term for straight people) then call them Heterosexuals. The whole trend amongst teens to call a thing "gay" started in the 90's and is a not unexpected response during a time when full acceptance of gay people in society is pretty much a given except for a few, final neanderthalithic misanthropes. It's one of the last remnants of oppression on a social scale that still exists. Today's teens are just emulating what their peers are saying, and what they learned at their older siblings knee. Eventually, it will become as quaint a phrase as "Dude, that was like totally tubular". When someone says "that is so gay" around me, my response is usually a snarky "As if a gay person would wear that shirt". Everytime I've said it, the person gets a sheepish look on their face and does the "hehe" chuckle admitting that what they said was pretty lame. A note to XL who said "If the gay person in question is not wearing makeup, girls clothes, or using a pronounced lithp, I wouldn't take any shots. But if they combine any of the above I have no choice." Umm, yeah - you might want to ask the New York City Police Department about how that worked out for them in 1969 when they got their tushes handed to them by a bunch of Judy Garland mourning drag queens who beat the cops down with the high heels they were wearing. As for the pigeonhole - sorry, that's just to small - Let's enlarge it to an Eagle-hole. And no swishy hats, they're just so breedery. But I will bring the dutch oven apple/peach/cherry cobbler!

I would do two things. One: Never, ever buy equipment or materials that would need reimbursement from Council, ever again - no matter what the purpose. Two: When FOS comes around, fill out the form with the amount of the sales tax that the Council withheld from your reimbursement, then mark it Paid In Full In Advance, and mail it directly to the Scout Executive with the back-up of your reimbursement request, receipt and copy of the check you received. When the Scout Executive calls you to discuss your FOS contribution, (and I'll bet he will), explain to him in no uncertain terms that what the Council did was unethical, immoral, un-Scoutlike, and quite possibly illegal, and that that was your very last contribution of cash or in-kind materials and that the remainder of the money you would have sent to FOS is heading to your unit, or if you aren't affiliated with a unit, the unit of your choice, then stick to your guns unless you get a very effusive apology and promise that it will never happen again to you or any other volunteer.

Interesting tactic from the conservatives - attempt to compare apples and oranges and hope people are too stupid to realize they're being mislead. Section 1233 of America's Affordable Health Choices Act in no way, shape or form resembles the Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999. The Texas Advance Directives Act defines exactly what Texas considers to be the proper form for an Advance Directive (it even provides the exact language that must appear in a Texas Advance Directive) and spells out what responsibilities Physicians and Hospitals are required to follow when presented with an Advance Directive. It also spells out what steps can be done if there are no Advance Directives, and what steps must be done to break an Advance Directive. This act spells out specifics - which isn't surprising because most acts created by state legislatures tend to be pretty specific. Anyone who actually read that act before it was passed should register no surprise that it led to "death panels" in Texas. Section 1233 of the proposed federal legislation doesn't define what an advance directive is, nor does it spell out how advanced directives are to be treated. What Section 1233 does is amend Section 1861 in the Social Security Act which spells out what Medicare will pay for. That's all it does - adds a service - Advance Care Planning Consultation - that Medicare will pay for. There is nothing in Section 1233 (or for that matter, in Section 1861) that makes Advance Care Planning Consultation mandatory - nothing. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply lying. Section 1233 defines what an Advance Care Planning Consultation consists of - information about what kinds of advanced directives are out there, what living wills are, where patients can go to get more information. No where does it state that any patient must have an Advance Care Planning Consultation, and nowhere does it state that a Physician can force a patient to have an Advance Care Planning Consultation against their will. Nowhere - and anyone who claims otherwise is - a liar. All Section 1233 does is allow a doctor to make a claim for payment from Medicare for the consultative appointment. If Aunt Millie just wants to spend 20 minutes with her Doctor to find out what options are out there for her to consider to protect herself and her family, Section 1233 allows Medicare to pay the Doctor instead of forcing Aunt Millie to pay the doctor. The Act makes clear too that these are separate consultations - not consultations made in context with any other visit. Go in to see your Doctor for a Rheumatism consult and you and the Doctor can still discuss advanced planning, with no additional cost. The 5-year limitation is consistent with other limitations imposed by both Medicare and private insurance companies. Medicare pays for certain durable goods, like wheelchairs - but they don't pay for you to buy a new wheelchair every month, or even every year - you're limited to how often you can buy one through Medicare - this 5 year limitation is no different. It also waives the 5 year limitation if there has been a significant change in status. Perhaps Aunt Millie had a consultation a couple of years ago when she was as healthy as an ox. This year she get's cancer, or breaks a hip - she can have another planning consult at Medicare's expense to see if there have been any changes in what's out there, or to discuss whether it makes sense to make any changes to what she's already done. To be brutally frank, anyone who has actually read Section 1233 and comes away believing it will lead to "death panels" needs some remedial lessons in reading comprehension. If there is a flaw in Section 1233, its that it funds consultations with Doctors - perhaps it would be better if it funded consultations with Lawyers and Legal Aid groups instead. In the meantime, Robert Painter is doing what any skilled attorney can do - like a Magician, he's misdirecting the gullible in the hopes they'll never look behind the curtain to learn his trickery. Robert Painter is lying to the people - apparently his personal code of ethics allows him to sleep at night. I guess he was never a Boy Scout.

Skeptic, You're going to either love or hate the "new" line from Thermarest (I say "new" only because it seems it's been quite a long time since you've been shopping for one). They still sell the classic orange Thermarest, and the lightweight folding Thermarest - but they've expanded into the car camping culture too. My Thermarest (bought 2 years ago) is full size and much wider. Also thicker, with a fleece top. Still self inflates, and you can still hyperinflate to bring it to the comfort level you want - I've never slept better on the ground and it fits my sleeping style perfectly (side sleeper, using sleeping bag as blanket). It also takes up most of the room in my REI 1/2 dome. It's not small or light - it's at least as heavy as my tent. But I wouldn't go anywhere without it. Thermarest also has a super-duper set-up - seems enough people were using a Thermarest self-inflator with a thick closed cell pad that Thermarest created a combo - eseentially a closed cell pad in one sleeve pocket and a large self inflator in another sleeve pocket. They even have them in "Extra Large". Makes the Big Agnes look downright cheap in comparison.

I'm do buckskinner rondys. At least I do when I get the chance. With work and a chronic lung condition that has resulted in a serious lack of stamina, I don't go out as often as I like. I don't have the time, and more importantly, the energy I need to set up camp. (I still car camp as often as I can - setting up my car camping site takes less than 15 minutes - just lifting and setting up my 12x12 canvas tent can take 45 minutes). Lately, I've been giving serious consideration to paying someone to pick up my gear from home, set up camp, then take it down and return it to my home at the end of the weekend. In addition to cash, I'd pay their expenses (local motel, food, gas) - all so that I can enjoy rondy's again. Last year, I visited the Upper Peninsula (Michigan). One night found me at the Porcupine Mountains. Their Yurt at their bayside campground was available for the night - I snatched it up rather than set up my campsite. How enjoyable it was to not have to worry about set up or take down. A couple of weeks back I camped in Washington State - at a couple of different state parks. I brought my camping gear with me from Illinois. Had I the option of a pre-set up campsite, I would have jumped at it - less stuff to drag around with me. Lately, I've been trying to figure out if its time for me to buy a self-contained RV. I'm not that old (same age as President Obama) - but I am getting worn down (reduced lung capacity will do that). Or maybe I should get an old van that I can throw a sleeping pad in the back of for sleeping. I haven't decided yet. I do know this, somehow or another I will continue to "camp" for as long as I am able. I used to be a purist who insisted that camping in anything other than a tent you set up yourself is not camping. I used to be a purist who looked at pop-ups and wondered just what was the point. I used to be a purist who looked at giant RV's - buses as houses - and sneered that this wasn't camping - not when you have an air conditioner, television, refrigerator, electric lights, and a queen size bed. Ok - I'm still the latter - but I'm mellowing with age and infirmity. Pre-set up tent sites? Bring 'em on! That's still camping in my book. Now if they start offering to set up your campfire, and light it, and build your smores? I'll consider it taking things too far. Funny thing, now that I think of it - when I spent a few weeks hiking the AT in Maine and New Hampshire back in the 80's, I didn't even give any thought of how hypocritical my purity stand was when I was staying at shelters.

Interesting the different perspectives. Though Wormy (Scout) (welcome to the forum, BTW) doesn't tell us why he dislikes the uniform, from the visceral reaction evident in his post, it seems that it's likely that the looks of the uniform is a big part of the reason for the dislike. Count this as one vote against. From SR540Beaver (Scouter) the perspective is comfort and functionality makes the uniform a winner. Count this as one vote for. From Nick (Scout), a dislike of the pockets and length, and a preference for the old color scheme, yet a reluctant willingness to try the new uniform. Because of the stated perceived flaws and the reluctance expressed, I'm calling this a vote against. So far we're at 2 votes against - both by the youth, and 1 vote for - by an adult. Now granted this is a VERY small sample, but it makes me wonder if the folks who put the new uniform together bothered to "test market" it with the folks we serve? We've had threads on why Scouts don't like to wear the uniforms - Seems to me we're getting a hint of the answer here.

"When the ACLU begins to fight for gun rights as strongly as the right to call an image of a crucifix in a glass pitcher of urine "art"--they may have some street cred." I missed this when the thread first started - but I can't let it pass. My answer is: When the NRA begins to fight for the right to call an image of a crucifix in a glass pitcher of urine "art" as strongly as the they fight for gun rights, then maybe they'll have some street cred. The ACLU mostly fights to protect First Amendment rights, the NRA mostly fights to protect Second Amendment rights. Isn't it ok that they concentrate on what they do best? I'll also say this - if you are an NRA member, you should also be a member of the ACLU. If you are a member of the ACLU, you should also be a member of the NRA. If you are a member of one and denigrate the members of the other, then shame on you, and ask yourself why you hate the Bill of Rights.

A potential flaw? Perhaps - or perhaps a true understanding of the market. How many Brownies have 20 bucks in their pocketbooks to hand over for popcorn?

I'd like to point out that Oscar de la Renta, the designer who designed the last uniform, and on whose work the new centennial uniform is based, is/was not gay. I will say that the uniform needed to be changed in the worst way for at least the last 15 years - it was a fine uniform for the 1980's but by the mid-90's was sorely dated. I've not done the research but with a 29 year run, the de la Renta uniform may be the longest any one uniform style existed in the Boy Scouts. I strongly doubt that a gay designer designed the centennial uniform - the trend amongst gay designers the past 10 years has been for neat, trim, and clean lines - not pocket sleeves, not folded over and buttoned up sleeves, not boxy pockets. The centennial uniform shirt looks as if it was frankensteined together by a committee that took the base de la Renta shirt and added elements resurrected from an old style Abercrombie and Fitch catalog - back when Abercrombie and Fitch was selling travel and safari clothing (1980's) and not trendy clothing for teens and twenty somethings. I think the real problem with the Boy Scout uniform is that the BSA is trying to hard to accomplish everything it thinks it needs to do to make the uniform multi-functional. Back in the 70's, I wore the green uniform - simple, clean lines - no overabundance of pockets - and it served just as well outdoors and it did indoors. My biggest issue with that uniform was that the pant and shirt color matched too well - there needed to be some contrast - they kind of contrast that the forest green shirt added to the khaki green pants - now that was a sharp look (especially with the Red Beret - which had much more functionality than any other hat developed by the BSA - couldn't play frisbee with the overseas cap and couldn't use the campaign hat as a softball base). Today, according to the BSA and their focus groups (if they used any), the uniform must emulate the clothes sold by Bass Pro Shops or Cabelas, or they just won't be functional. Pants must have cargo pockets and be able to convert to shorts. Shirts must have pockets that can hold I-pods (or cigarettes) and need to at least look as if they can convert from long sleeve to short sleeve. Unfortunately, these enhancements don't make these clothes look good in any context except the back woods which means they just don't look good in more formal settings. Is it any wonder that the boys don't want to wear these things anymore? They don't worry about looking geeky anymore, they worry about looking out of date. (Note to the BSA - Cargo Pants went out of style back in the late 1990's when WalMart started selling them for 15 bucks and folks started putting cargo pockets on sweat pants and Cargo Shorts lost cache when Old Navy started selling them in a funky orange color - today the only cargo shorts acceptable are colored khaki tan and the pockets must be so big as to be barely noticeable, loose and sloppy - and epaulets went out of style in 1988). Instead of looking at outdoor catalogs for trends in outdoor wear (I'm all awash in anticipation for the time the BSA decides that the uniform should be made using polar fleece), perhaps they should look at the uniforms of the National Park Ranger service, US Forest Service, and state Conservation Law Enforcement services - simple, classic uniforms that look sharp and seem to serve these outdoor folks just fine. Perhaps it's time for the BSA to hire a gay designer to design the uniform - maybe they'll get a uniform that people will actually like to wear.

Mmmmmmm, Do-nutsssssssss (U'mm, we're talking about Brownies) Dohhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I hear a rumor that Sarah Palin and Chuck Norris will be announcing the discovery of the true intent of the health care reform proposals - which they divined when they investigated the "Death Panels" more closely. Allegedly, they will announce that they have discovered that: All citizens, and all resident non-citizens (legal or illegal) will, upon the 40th anniversary of their birth, be required to participate in a new government program called "Carousel". Groups of people will enter a cage and when the countdown clock reaches zero, will be bathed in a special anti-gravity field allowing them to float in the air. They will have 5 minutes to try to reach the top of the 5-story cage and capture a special medallion, all the while attempting to avoid touching the electrified sides of the cage, and random death beam laser fire. If they succeed, they will be allowed to live out their lives in full retirement on a Hawaiian Island of their choice at government expense. If they fail (and failure = death), they will be provided with a free burial. Anyone who refuses to answer the summons on their 40th birthday will be hunted down by a special group of government law enforcement officers called "the Sandmen". Once cornered by the Sandmen, the offender will be summarily executed with no trial or appeal and the body will be disposed of in a special processing plant run by India, soon to be the most populous country on the planet. In order to catch up with the number of people currently in the country over the age of 40, the government will limit the time allowed in Carousel in the first two years to 1 minute in an accelerated program designed to further reduce costs in the long run. Nursing homes will be used as practice fields for the training of the Sandmen. "Carousel" will be broadcast 24 hours per day on a government owned television station that all cable and satellite companies will be required to carry. Richard Dawson will be made exempt from the Carousel requirements so that he can host the Carousel programs on government television. The television show will include special reports on the carefree lives of the winners of Carousel. In related news, I hear a rumor that India will be announcing a new type of soylent curry which meets all the nutritonal needs of humans and which will be offered in a package not unsimilar to granola or energy bars, though they are still trying to get the shade of green right before they release it into wide circulation.