CalicoPenn

It does indeed appear that National hasn't yet updated their website yet with the latest information - so mea culpa on that. I went ahead and contacted Philmont - and they are requiring EMT's to get the Wilderness Certs as well - some of the same folks on their list provide Wilderness Certs for W-EMT (which isn't a recognized designation by the National Registry). So you can either get the Wilderness First Aid certs or the Wilderness EMT Certs (which I did get when they first became available - I can tell you that there was very little in that class that I hadn't already learned in Boy Scouts, and the only reason I went for the "W" Cert was that my college offered the whole course (which takes the National Registry Courses - required by 46 states to be an EMT) and adds a wilderness component and they arranged for all the EMT's that were certified before they started attending the school to "upgrade" for free (which took 2 days of 3 hour classes at the time). Eagle732 - I'd opt for the Wilderness First Aid course at this time, unless Maryland accepts Wilderness EMT courses for Continuing Ed for re-cert. I looked at the 5-day Wilderness EMT upgrade course (its now a 45 hour course) and there is little in there that I hadn't already learned in my initial EMT training - most of it will be review of things you've already learned - and unless you can get Continuing Ed certs for it, you'd just be wasting your time (because you could likely get it all again while taking Cert acceptable CE). Of course, the question why the High Adventure Bases are not accepting EMT's without the W certs is one of those "who knows what they are thinking" questions, that may even be related to the recent questions about adding bullying to T-FC Requirements - it may be because its a new buzzword (thats been around for over 20 years) that they can trot out to parents to show how responsible they're being - never mind that if an EMT and a Wilderness First Aid certed person is in the same crew and there is an injury, the EMT is the one that will be the primary medical officer on site, whether he has a wilderness certification or not. Woe be the Wilderness First Aider that fails to accept the EMT's primacy, takes charge, and the injured party dies or is permanently disabled. The lawyers will have a field day with that person, and with the BSA. Calico

Here is what National BSA's Philmont Website has to say about the first aid certification requirements for Philmont crews. First Aid and CPR Certification Philmont requires that at least one person (preferably two) in each crew be currently certified in American Red Cross Standard First Aid or the equivalent and CPR from the American Heart Association, the American Red Cross, or the equivalent. Several hours may be required for Philmont staff to reach a remote backcountry location after a message is delivered to the nearest staffed camp. First aid and CPR training will result in proper and prompt attention being given to injuries and/or illnesses. You must present current certification cards upon check-in to verify this requirement. Equivalent training may include instruction by ambulance or fire department personnel, community colleges, or other organizations. You must have a letter indicating length of training, topics covered, and participant roster. You can find this at: http://www.scouting.org/HighAdventure/Philmont/Hikers/crew.aspx This comes direct from National - not from any council sites. It requires Standard First Aid certification, not Wilderness First Aid (as some Council sites are stating - the one I saw used it as a selling tool for a Wilderness First Aid session). Note also the use of the word Equivalent. EMT is more than sufficient training for equivalency purposes. Philmont, and I suspect the other National High Adventure Bases as well, will accept EMT as equivalent certtification - and your EMT will cover both the first aid and CPR portions. Its unlikely they will ask for a letter outlining the course topics and length if you present a copy of your certification. The flexibility you're wondering about is built right in to their statements. BSA's risk management department is also smart enough to know that an EMT on site trumps anyone with Red Cross standard or wilderness first aid certs, just as a Paramedic would trump an EMT-B and an MD trumps all. Calico

(African or European?)

It used to be that in general, individual units didn't have "Cracker Barrels". Snacks, yes - and they could even be the same kind of snacks found at "Cracker Barrels", but they weren't called "Cracker Barrels". "Cracker Barrels" aren't really about the food. Its about getting together with friends and soon to be friends around a, you guessed it, a "Cracker Barrel" to exchange news, gossip, recipes, thoughts, ideas, etc. The terminology comes from when most people shopped at the local General Store and would gather 'round the Cracker Barrel to set and visit for a spell. Most camporees I've been to have had a "Cracker Barrel" for the Scoutmaster and SPL's on the first night out so that the Camporee staff can provide the information all the units need for the next couple of days activities - ie: When do the events start, what time is flag raising, where is Sunday services, when is the closing ceremony, etc. etc. etc. OA often has Cracker Barrels that every one is invited to, which still reflects the spirit of ye olde cracker barrel - a gathering of friends and soon to be friends to catch up on whats been happening since the last time they got together (OA is a great opportunity for Scouts and Scouters from different parts of the Council to get to know one another). As for food, you can get as fancy or as simple as you want. Simple is crackers, cheese, and sausage. Fancy is bite size pizza. Except for Watercress Sandwiches. The only time watercress sandwiches are acceptable at a Scouting function is if the watercress has been harvested from the wild by the Scout/Scouter, and served on made-from-scratch bread baked in a duth oven over coals. Calico

I dare say there is a big difference between "unauthorized" and "prohibited". Where the statement is coming from is rather important as well. It is Risk Management using the term "unauthorized". My read on that is that should a unit go ahead and plan a Laser Tag outing, and someone gets hurt, BSA insurance may not cover any injuries, or lawsuit that may follow, as Laser Tag was an "unauthorized" activity. It appears to make Laser Tag a "do this at your own risk" activity. Which brings up a question - could Capture the Flag be considered a "wargame" and be therefore "unauthorized"? Calico

I just got an image of Winnie the Pooh sitting on a log all day with his chin in one hand, spending the day just thinking - because it's World Thinking Day. Happy World Thinking Day to all Calico

The amortized cost of the construction of a building built in 1928 has been fully satisfied for a very long time now - think decades. Even if it hadn't, the way ground leases work, that building became the property of the City of Philadelphia the moment it was built. The city owes CoL nothing for the building.

I'm going to suggest that it isn't the Cubmaster that is failing - it is all the other Leaders in the Pack that are failing. You state that the other DL's were not behind the Cubmaster 100% when he first started. From that moment on, the Pack failed the Cubmaster - not the other way around. When the Cubmaster accepted the job, the Den Leaders should have rallied behind him immediately, or stepped aside if they felt they couldn't give 100% of their support to the new top dog. You seem to want to take the correct course here - and that's sitting down with the Cubmaster and asking how you can help. This is not a time for a sit down with the Cubmaster and point out his flaws session. This is a time to tell the other DL's to take the mote out of their own eyes, to look at how their own actions and lack of actions have harmed the unit, to look at their own flaws, and start working to support the Cubmaster 100% - an easy fix - to start - would be for each Den to take responsibility for planning at least one Pack Meeting a year - thats the songs, skits, color guard duties, etc. etc. etc. - then let the Cubmaster do what Cubmasters should be doing - run the Pack Meeting (note I said run - not plan - he should be the MC that steps up when its time to switch gears), hand out the awards, congratulate the boys, motivate the Den Leaders, motivate the boys, motivate the parents. In essence, the Cubmaster's main job is to be the "Alpha Wolf" of the Pack - the public face of the leadership, the guy/gal that accepts the public credit for all the work without actually doing all the work OR taking credit for all the work (for those having a difficult time understanding how that works, it means the Cubmaster, like the CEO of a business, accepts the public accolades on behalf of the rest of the Leaders of the Pack). The next fix is to get a Pack Committee - you don't appear to have one - you appear only to have program leaders - and that's not enough. We all emphasize training as that all important tool to make one a success in one's Scouting role - but it occurs to me that we fail to note what the most important tools are for a Cubmaster/Scoutmaster - and it isn't training. The most important tool for a Cubmaster/Scoutmaster are the other adult leaders around him. Its very true that one is only as good as one's tools. Stop "grading" your Cubmaster, gather your fellow DL's, and remind them all that the Cubmaster succeeds or fails as you succeed/fail. You are his tools - and as such, you are the most important ingredient in his success. If he succeeds, you all succeed. If he fails, you all have failed. Calico

Sometimes its good to have the adults eat "as guests" of the patrols. Helps to prevent just such an occurence. Imagine the Scoutmaster's reaction if the menu said he was going to be eating Pancakes and Bacon and the Patrol left out the bacon? Or his reaction if the menu said he was going to be served Lasagna and was handed a hamburger instead? Imagine the Patrol's embarrassment. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be a full meal - for instance the lasagna. What would the Patrol do if the Scoutmaster said throughout the day he was sure looking forward to a taste of the Patrol's lasagna that night? Bet the Patrol makes the Lasagna. Calico

What was the name of the ghostwriter again??

Eagle732 - of course you didn't perform that weekend of service for nothing. You performed it because as a member of the Order of the Arrow - the Brotherhood of Cheerful Service - you were living the obligation. If you came away from the weekend with the impression that you performed that weekend of service in order to solidify your membership in the Order as a Brotherhood Member, then shame on the Lodge for not making things more clear. On the other hand, it can be easy to come away with that impression - after all, most Lodges do Brotherhood testing the same time they do Ordeal weekends. Once I became an Ordeal member, I attended every work weekend for my Lodge, because I believed in the importance of service. When I solidified my membership as a Brotherhood member, I continued to attend every work weekend for my Lodge, because I believed in the importance of service. I never had a thought of being honored with Vigil, so I was surprised (and pleased) when I was one of the 14 selected the year I became a Vigil member. One of the things that stood out as I was nominated? I attended every work weekend since I beame an Ordeal memmber - because I believed in the importance of service. Once I was honored as Vigil, I continued to attend every work weekend until I headed off to Maine for college. Why? Three guesses. Calico

Eagle732, An aside on the OA Brotherhood issue. The requirements to become a Brotherhood Member are minimal: 1) Be an Ordeal Member for at least 10 months 2) Maintain your registered status in the BSA 3) Maintain your registered status in the Order of the Arrow 4) Memorize the Obligation, the OA Song, the Admonition, the Sign of Ordeal Membership, and the Arrow Handclasp. 5) Gained a thorough understanding of the Ordeal which one has passed. In addition, a letter to the Lodge Secretary telling what one thinks the Obligation means, describing how one has used the Obligation in their unit, and listing what how one plans to provide future service to the Lodge is recommended (but not required - in many lodges, this is done orally when testing for the 5 requirements). Contrary to popular belief, there is no additional service required, ala the Ordeal - however most Lodges conduct Brotherhood "testing" during their work weekends, and everyone is expected to work at the work weekends (except for perhaps folks who became Vigil Honor Members that weekend - there is a Vigil involved, and without going into detail, the next day is a day of rest (except for me who did the Brotherhood "testing" the day I received my Vigil Honor). What you describe sounds perfectly acceptable as far as the Brotherhood goes. What does disturb me about what you've described is that the new Brotherhood Members weren't apparently given the opportunity to go through the Brotherhood Ceremony - which to me is a very important step. If there is anything you should bring up at your Roundtable is that the OA Members who got their Brotherhood were denied a proper ceremony - I'd corner the Chapter Adviser and ask if he will push the Lodge to make sure the newly minted Brotherhoods go through the ceremony. Now, if you know that the lad who did get his shiny new sash wasn't a member of the OA for 10 months, that would give you something else to bring up. (Note to moderators - everything I have posted in this about the requirements for Brotherhood is in the official OA publication Guide for Officers and Advisers which is publically available for download from the web, no special passwords needed. Grandma Milly from Schenectady can download it from the web if she wanted. It is not secret, private information - please refrain from letting an ignorant member bully you into removing this post because it "should be secret"). Calico

LisaBob has great advice. Here's mine: Get yourself the Troop Committee Guidebook and look for training opportunities for yourself. The Troop Advancement Chair's primary responsibilities are to maintain the advancement records, fill in the proper paperwork to turn into Council to purchase the awards, arrange for BOR's, encourage Scouts to advance, work with the Librarian to ensure that the library has up to date materials. In other words, the role of Advancement Chair is an administrative role - just like every other committee job. It isn't to enforce program policy. That is the role of the Scoutmaster and his assistants. As Advancement Chair, if you are going to refuse to fill out the paperwork because you feel that the boys haven't earned the ranks or merit badges or served in the POR properly, then you may as well resign because you aren't doing your job. It may be frustrating, but that is the job. If the Scoutmaster says the Scout has passed his SMC and is ready for a BOR, the Scout gets a BOR whether you agree with the Scoutmaster or not. If the BOR says the Scout has passed the BOR, then the Scout gets the rank, whether you agree or not. If you really want to change the culture of advancement in the unit, then being Advancement Chair isn't the role for that. Ask to become an ASM then work with the Scoutmaster to make change happen. As far as the Skating Merit Badge - let it go - if a Merit Badge Counselor signed off on the badge, the lad gets the Merit Badge. There is a section on the blue card for the Scoutmaster to sign acknowledging that he knows the lad is working on the badge (it is not, by the way, a permission from the Scoutmaster to work on the badge - just an acknowledgment). In this day of "Merit Badge Colleges", there are many instances of blue cards being signed off on by Merit Badge Counselors without a SM's acknowledgment - most SM's never make an issue of it. The second SM signature is just an acknowledgment that he received the completed Blue Card - nothing more - it is not a final step before the badge is already earned. When the MBC signed the Blue Card, the badge was earned. Scoutmasters, (and Advancement Chairs) don't get to deny awarding the merit badge. The mother was right when she said she got to decide when he gets the badge - in this case, she was holding back a completed blue card as a form of punishment for her son's actions - not the way most of us would like to have things done, but as the parent, she was well within her rights. BTW - not only was Mom right, but so was the Troop Treasurer (your husband). Even more important, the Committee may have discussed this at a meeting and agreed that the Scout shouldn't get the merit badge but guess what - the Committee has no power to deny that boy the Merit Badge - none whatsoever. Calico

How old is this boy? What else can you tell us about him before we all have a "pile on the boy" party. I ask because it's unusual for a boy to regularly have body odor issues to such an extreme as you mention. A week in the woods without showering? Yeah, I can see it. But a week at home? Unless his parents aren't insisting he take regular showers, or unless he's wearing the same clothes day in and day out, there may be something more going on. What is the regular diet of the lad. If his regular diet includes lots of curry, he may have an odor that is foreign to most people, but not to his parents (or to many people in other parts of the world whose diet is heavy in curry). If it is diet - then you'll all just need to learn to live with it - or prepare yourself to lose a Scout and be branded an insensitive bigot by the lads parents and friends. If, at the end of the day, it can't be pinpointed to lack of showers/clotheswashing, or diet - it could be a medical issue that the parents may not be aware of. There is some experimenting with training dogs to detect possible cancer in people through smell because cancer will cause an odor that is not typical. Before you drag the kid off to a shower, I think you owe it to him, and his family, to help him figure out just what is going on. Calico

Whenever I buy something for a fundraiser from someone's child at work, I just put my name and company name - I figure my coworkers should be able to figure out how to find my office when it comes time to deliver. If you're going to use a made up address, may as well go all the way. Imagine the look on some Council persons face when they read something like this: Grandpa, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500 Calico

The FIRST time your son was denied the Eagle rank, the folks doing the BOR should have (as they are required to do) provided your son the reason for the denial in writing and the information he would need to appeal the decision to the Council (your first point of appeal). That information would include the contact information at Council. What you need to do now is contact the head of your son's 2nd BOR and demand that they provide you with the reason for the denial, in writing and in detail - and give them a deadline - no more than one week, and that they give you the contact information at Council to begin the appeal process. Your first appeal should be to the Council Advancement Committee. I'm sorry you have to go through this because some adults in your son's life are playing power trip games with your son. Scout Spirit is the most subjective load of BS that BORs use to hold Scouts back. In the meantime, see if you can find out what Council your son's Troop is in, and phone them for the information as well. Just call and ask to speak to someone about appealing a denial of Eagle rank. Make sure you tell them that your son was denied the Eagle rank TWICE in a BOR, and was not given the information at the first BOR needed in order to mount an appeal. Please let us know how it turns out. Calico

Our lodge required medical authorization forms for anyone under 18. If you were 18 or older, the forms weren't considered neccessary because you are legally able to consent to medical treatment without parental permission at that age. Calico

Maybe we can start a BSA Research Project in genetics to breed out the Endomorphic Body Type in the human race. Maybe we can require all adult leaders to pass, every 4 months, the same physical fitness test the US Marines requires. Maybe we can devote 30 minutes of every Adult Leader meeting to 30 minutes of physical training. Maybe we can require every adult to show proof that they have a health club membership when they apply for membership or recharter. Maybe we can charge adults a sliding membership fee based on weight - the heavier you are, the more you pay. And while we're at it, maybe we should just deny membership to every youth and adult that is overweight for their age and height, because, like athiests that can't do a "Duty to God" and gays that can't be "Morally Straight", overweight people can't be "Physically Strong". While we're at it, we may as well deny membership to every youth and adult that is physically or mentally disabled, and that includes those whose disablities fall into the autism/adhd/learning spectrums too, because they don't meet the criteria of the Scout Oath either. Or maybe we can all just mind our own business and worry about ourselves for a change. Maybe we should stop being so judgemental about other people based on physical characteristics - especially when we know nothing about those people. Maybe we should be an organization that is open to all boys, and accepts competent adult volunteers of every stripe and remember that the Scout Oath starts out by saying "On My Honor, I Will Do MY Best" and let each individual determine what MY best means to them. Personal Example: At the beginning of 2005, I weighed 225 pounds - a solid Mesomorph. Most people looking at me would not have said I was fat - and most would never have guessed I weighed more than 200 pounds. Comes from a lot of mountain climbing, hiking, physical activity. In April of 2005, I started to lose weight - rapidly - too rapidy - up to 2 pounds per day. I also started getting winded just climbing the short 7-step flight of stairs needed to get into the office building I worked in. X-rays of my chest showed my lungs full of opaque spots throughout and the bottom third of both lungs showed as a solid, opaque mass. After thoracic surgery to perform a lung biopsy, I was relieved to learn it was't cancer. Instead, it turned out to be a relatively rare form of organizing pneumonitis. Rare enough that I was the first case my lung specialist, and his partners had seen - and I'm fortunate enough to have one of the top-ranked lung specialists in the state as my doctor - the people that other lung specialists would have sent me to for this anyway. The only effective treatment is steroids - massive doses of steroids. For any other steroid treatment, the doses would be overdose levels. The steroids worked great - the lungs cleared up. They also had a side effect - I gained weight. Lots of weight. By the time I was removed from the steroids, I weighed 265 pounds. I was no longer muscular, I was fat. For about 4 months, I was fine - then I had a relapse (occurs in about 40% of the cases). Back on the steroids - massive doses at first and now I'm on a smaller maintenance dose, which I may end up remaining on for the rest of my life. I gained even more weight - I'm now 285 pounds. I still remain active as I can (it isn't my weight that stops me - its my lungs - they've been irreparably damaged by my illness), I eat healthy, no junk food, no soda, water only, lots of salads, soups, cook only with fresh ingredients, no pre-packaged meals, and watch my portions - but because of my medication, I am only able to maintain at a set weight. I now weigh 285 pounds - and have been 285 pounds for the last year and a half. I consider it a victory that I'm not gaining more. I consider it a victory that I'm alive. I've been working with a personal trainer for the last 2 years to try to rebuild my stamina. It has taken me that two years to get to the point where I can maintain a steady pace on an elliptical trainer, without stopping to catch my breath, for 17 minutes. Am I offended that someone who doesn't know me and my circumstances would call me fat? No. What I am offended about is the notion that people think they have a right to judge other people based on their own beliefs and body weight. What I'm offended about is the notion that its ok to offend other people because its being done for that other persons health and well-being. What I'm offended about is the notion that because someone doesn't fit into an individuals idea of what it means to be fit, or physically strong, or morally straight, or whatever, that it's ok to brand that someone as somehow inferior. Calico

(sigh - this is what happens when I submit in a hurry without re-reading what I've written - my above post makes no sense at all). When I said "If an adult was stroking your sons hair and cheeks at a campout and your son didn't find it appropriate" what I meant to type was: "If an adult was stroking your son's hair and cheeks at a campout and your son didn't find it INappropriate". Makes a big difference in the question. So maybe I should rephrase it slightly: If an adult was stroking your son's hair and cheeks at a campout and he didn't think anything was wrong with it, would you as a parent agree that there was nothing wrong with it or would you as a parent say "whoa - that is not something I want some adult to ever be doing to my son"? Calico

"What can you say to a dad who years later says "My son served two tours as a Marine in Iraq but he wasn't good enough for the Boy Scouts?"." I'd say "I'm sorry the Boy Scouts wasn't good enough for your son". Calico

"Harvesting a plant is woman's work, a real man would know that" So what you're saying is that a man can't be a real man without a strong woman at his side to dig in the muck? And what about Mountain Men - you know, the guys who actually did things like this for long periods of time in the wilderness without the company of anyone else, let alone a woman? They must have whimpered in defeat anytime they had to cook, sew, harvest plant parts, etc. Calico

Acco, "CalicoPenn - I think you got it slightly wrong. It should not depend on if the parent feels it was inappropriate or not but if the Scout feels it was inappropriate." I don't think I got it wrong at all. If an adult was stroking your sons hair and cheeks at a campout and your son didn't find it appropriate, would you, as a parent, agree with your son? I think most of us would say its inappropriate regardless of what our son, the Scout, thought. Calico

Real Manly Men don't change light bulbs! They wrestle a bull to the ground to kill it with their own bare hands, butcher the beast, render the fat into tallow so they can make candles out of it, not forgetting of course to braid wicks out of fibers from a cattail leaves which they've harvested themselves from the middle of a marsh, then use flint (found and dug themselves) and steel (which they've formed, tempered and forged from scratch themselves) to start a fire so that they can light their candles. Calico

I support Merlyn 90% on this one. It doesn't matter that he's in Minnesota and the Councils are in California and Colorado. It isn't state money that funds the grants, it is federal money, paid by all taxpayers throughout the entire United States. As the United States no longer requires tax dollars to be collected and distributed in an apportioned manner, there is no longer any validity to a potential argument that only the taxpayers in California and Colorado are responsible for the tax dollars paid to the Feds that were going to be used for the HUD Grants. That money can come out of any of our, or from all of ou, pockets - no matter what state we live in. That gives Merlyn just as much interest in how HUD grants are distributed anywhere in the country as anyone else - even local folks. People seem to be missing the bigger point - and the point is that HUD Community Development Block Grants have eligibility requirements that MUST be met. Cities may disperse the grants, but they MUST ensure that the projects meet the eligibility requirements. In these cases, its clear on the face of it that the projects do not meet the requirements. Merlyn makes clear that the Los Padres Scouting Soccer Clinic would have crossed the line IF they would be using the same BSA membership forms that other Soccer & Scouting Program's use. Los Padres Council was given an opportunity to say that they wouldn't be using those forms to conduct their soccer clinic and that it would be open to all youth - including athiests and girls (surprised you missed that angle - the grants also require nondescriminition on the basis of sex too - and would the BSA let girls fill out the normal BSA Application for the program?). Los Padres Council could still have been granted the Block Grant funds if they showed the City that the clinic would be open to all youth - The Los Padres Council apparently decided not to do so and withdrew their funding request instead. Its easy to miss that bigger point when we look at the projects - and we can all agree (as I'm sure that Merlyn does) that the projects are worthwhile. But that is not the question. The question is about funding. Had the cities used their own funds which may not have had such restrictions, we wouldn't be talking about this. Instead, the cities were using funds they received that have very specific regulations attached to them. And if they receive conflicting information about a grant project, they are required to investigate to ensure that the grant funds are properly awarded. Had they failed to take action, then they could lose future Block Grant funds from HUD which would affect much more than just the BSA in their communities. It looks like this is what is happening in the city that granted Block Grant funds to Pikes Peak Council - investigating the project to ensure it meets the eligibility requirements. If Scout Reach doesn't allow Athiests to participate, then under the Block Grant program, it wouldn't meet the requirements and funding would have to be revoked. On the other hand (here's where that 10% comes in), I'm willing to cut the councils a little slack here and not jump to a conclusion that they had intended to commit any fraud. Many Councils don't have professional grant writers on staff and use grant writing services who peruse many opportunities and apply for grants that look like they might fit a particular part of the program. To be frank, not all of them are that concerned about meeting every requirement. They get paid based on the number of successful grants they get. In many Councils where grants may be written internally, they may not notice every detail of a grant requirement and end up not making sure they've crossed every t and dotted every i. I'm willing to give these two Councils the benefit of the doubt in these matters. If you're that upset about the loss of funds that they didn't qualify for in the first place (note, I said QUALIFY for, not "deserve" - I'm not saying these programs aren't deserving of funding - just stating, as Merlyn has pointed out, that they don't qualify for funding from the Block Grant program), why don't you send a check to these councils and earmark it for those programs. Sometimes I wonder if people actually take the time to read and understand Merlyn's post, or if they are just so close-minded that they automatically go into "Disagree with Merlyn no matter what he say's" mode. I think there are some folks who just might try to dispute the statement that "the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West" if Merlyn were to make it. Calico

After reading the Manifesto on Manliness by Harvey Mansfield (Man, that's a lot of Mans), I am more convinced than ever than the Manliest of Men are, in fact - Gay Men. Straight Men are sissies compared to Gay Men. "Manliness," (says Mansfield), "is a quality that causes individuals to stand for something." There is nothing more manly then a couple of dozen drag queens removing their stilletos and beating the holy heck out of New York City Police Officers raiding a gay bar in NYC on the day that Judy Garland died and starting, with that one small act of "standing up for something" a major civil rights movement. "Manliness, says Mansfield, thrives on drama, conflict, risk, and exploits". You want drama, conflict, risk and exploits? You can have all four all at the same time any Friday or Saturday night in any gay bar in the country. Gay men thrive on drama, conflict, risk and exploits - and no one does it any better! Glad to see folks finally coming around and getting it. Time for the BSA to finally get it to, if we're going to stop being such a "girly-man" organization. Calico