CalicoPenn

In my neck of the woods, when Scouts - Cub, Boy, Girl, etc. are doing a flag ceremony, the flag can be accidently dragged or dropped in a mud puddle and the color guard will still get huge applause. I looked at a bunch of pictures of military color guards posted on the web. In many, the flags were held upright. In others, the US flag was upright, the service flag was tilted. In still others, the flags were held tilted, with the US flag at a shallower tilt than the other flags. It didn't matter which branch of the military, there was no 100% consistent method of doing it whether in the Army, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard, or Air Force. It also didn't matter if the color guard was standing still or marching. The only real consistency was when the flag wasn't being held in the holder but held with staff end on the ground - then the flag was universally help fully upright. When flags were tilted, it was always when held in a holder. One thing to remember as well, we have common practices when it comes to flag ceremonies - but they do change with time. 30 years or more ago, it would have been rare to find someone holding the US flag fully upright in a holder, either marching or standing.

Hold the phone here - No one should be faulting this trainer at all since she was given the wrong information in the first place, and was able to produce the handouts she received from her instructor to prove it. Repeating bad information received from another trainer doesn't make one a bad trainer, it just means the information is bad. What would make a bad trainer is if, when discovering the information they were provided is wrong, the trainer keeps using it. That's just not the sense I'm getting from Scoutfish. There is a lot more to training than just information - despite the bad information, was she engaging? Keeping folks interested? She may very well be a perfectly fine trainer who was handed bum information.

Has the lad actually met the requirements, including the Scoutmaster's Conference? Then you give him the BOR. The decision of the BOR must be unanimous. If he's denied rank advancement, you need to provide him with a written statement on why rank was denied, and what actions the Scout can take to pass a subsequent BOR. The denial should be tied in with a rank requirement though, the reason for denial can't just be because you don't like dad, or the Scout. If the BOR is denied, you'll be better off if you can tie it into something other than "Scout Spirit", just because Scout Spirit is the most subjective of all requirements - if you can show that he's not really met one of the other requirements - his leadership in POR wasn't up to standard for instance, you can be more specific about steps to take to improve in that area with a firm date for a new BOR (and not 6 months - it doesn't really give you license to make them do the entire POR process over again, but it's reasonable to give them 2 months to show marked improvement). Of course, a denial is appealable to the Council which is why I suggest using something more substantial than Scout Spirit. Regardless of the outcome of the BOR, you know it's time to cut this dad loose, which of course includes the son. As soon as the BOR ends, you should have the conversation with the Scout and his father that it's time for them to move on to another Troop and that you will transfer the lads records to the new Troop when they let you know where they landed. If they start to rant, I'd suggest to them that the Scout's rank advancement with your unit is ending here, that he will not reach Eagle because there will be no POR's available to him for the rest of his time in the Troop. This is important - if you have Scout Accounts, his Scout Account money does NOT get transfered with him - that is the Troops money, not his. If any of the money in that Scout Account was DIRECTLY deposited by the Scout, then he gets that portion, by check, immediately. Dad can grumble, moan, raise Cain about it all he wants, but the charitable rules of your State and the Federal Government is in your favor here - so don't let Dad bully you into giving up that money, or let Dad use the DE, DC, US, Council to try to bully you into giving up that money. If they come sniffing around, tell them to go pound sand, you're following IRS rules. Unfortunately, it doesn't help with the SM's ultimatum. The lad has had his conference - the BOR must be held - I think you need to take the SM out for a cup of hot cocoa and let him know that your hands are tied at this point and the BOR must happen, but, regardless of the outcome of the BOR, the lad and dad are being removed from the Troop's roster and told to find a new Troop. Either he understands and accepts that as part of the rules of the game we play, or he up and quits on you anyway, in which case, it's time for him to move on too. Of course, there is a way to prevent having to give a BOR in the first place, and that's to tell this Scout and his father right now that the Scout has been removed from the Unit's charter and since he's no longer a member of the Troop, you can't give him a BOR.

"Unfortuantely for Eagle, all you have to do is be on the charter to meet the "Active" definition, unless the GtA changed that. For the Sea Scout ranks, active means attending 75% of all unit meetings and activities. So just being on a ship's charter won't count." I understand what you're getting at but can you really tell me someone who has earned 21 merit badges, served in leadership positions for at least 3 ranks, met all the camping requirements for both rank and camping merit badge (including a long term camping requirement), worked on service projects through the ranks, designed and led an Eagle service project, met all the requirements for T-FC, completed 7 Scoutmaster Conferences and 6 Boards of Review hasn't been active? Unless the leaders are enabling someone to cheat, over the course of an Eagle Scout's career, he's likely to have been active in at leat 75% of a units activities - If a Scout has been 90% active the first three years, then drops to 70% active the next three years, he's been active 80% of his career. If the Sea Scouts want to use a numerical metric and it works for them, great - but it doesn't neccessarily mean that it's any more intensive than a Boy Scouts. There are a lot more ways for a Boy Scout to be active outside his unit's meetings and activities - and earning merit badges is just one example. "In addition to doing a service project, Quartermasters ALSO have to do a "Quartermaster sail". This requires the Sea Scout to be in charge of his boat undersail for 72 hours. That a lot more then what Eagle Scouts will do." Unless I misread the info at the link SailingPJ provided, the Quartermaster sail is 40 hours, including 2 nights. An awful lot of SPL's provide that kind of leadership on weekend campouts, in a properly run boy-led outfit. As for the service project, unless there is a workbook similar to the Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook that I'm missing, the process seems a bit easier to accomplish for that age group, and if the person has already earned Eagle Scout, it should be simpler.

Not offended but just trying to figure out why you think this is harder than Eagle? Is it because of all the different knots and splices you have to learn? They may be hard to learn because one is unfamilliar with them, but the T-FC requirements are hard to learn for an 11 year old because he's unfamiliar with them. Are you trying to say there are more Marlinspike Seamanship requirements than T-FC requirements? Teaching to an entire crew? Den Chiefs do it all the time to an entire Den, SPL's, Troop Guides, PL's and Instructors do it as well - teach large groups of people, as well as folks one on one. Have you taken into account the number of Merit Badges a Scout has to earn to become an Eagle Scout in a wide variety of subjects? I'm just not sure it's an insult to say Quartermaster is like Eagle Scout. I don't think you can come up with empirical evidence that one is harder than the other. At least I've not seen any yet.

In all the talk about budget and equipment constraints, I notice no one has mentioned time constraints. More often than not, the adults don't cook under the same time constraints as the patrols, especially at things like camporees. As Eamonn pointed out, it's common for an adult to stay behind and act as camp cook for the adults and, experience or not, that's an advantage when baking potatoes or making a proper beef stroganoff. My Troop's leaders used the same rationale as has been stated here - the "if we can do it, you can do it too" line - when a few of us pointed out that we didn't have someone who could stay behind to tend the fire and get dinner started like the adults did, they, fortunately, took that to heart and limited themselves to the same time constraints we had - it wasn't long before their meals became much simpler than they had been used to, especially on campouts (like camporees) where there wasn't a lot of wiggle room to extend dinner prep, eating and clean-up times. Instead of creating meals that take a lot of time to prepare and cook, how about figuring out ways to use what the lads are already cooking and punch them up a bit. Hamburgers? With conventional condiments? When the lads are eating hamburgers with ketchup, mustard, relish and maybe processed cheese, lettuce and tomato, the adults could be eating Hawaiian burgers with pineapple slices, swiss cheese, sweet onions and barbeque sauce on kaiser or pretzel rolls. You can make stuffed burgers. Hot Dogs? How about Bratwurst and Chorizo instead. Scrambled eggs for breakfast? How about a "skillet meal" - fried hashbrowns with peppers, onions, cut-up sausage links, ham cubes, cheese with scrambled eggs mixed in? Just because a food is simple, doesn't mean it can't be interesting. One of the things you can start teaching the lads is how to start preparing for other meals during other meal times. Is there really any reason the lunch cooks couldn't prepare a homemade salsa for the lunch chips during breakfast? It doesn't have to look like a picante sauce - a simple, mild recipe would be to dice up some tomatoes, onions, green peppers (add a few jalapenos if you want a little bite), add some chopped cilantro and the juice of a lime, mix it up, and let sit (in the cooler) until lunch.

So the neighboring troop's lads essentially got catered meals that weekend? I wonder how many of them were looking over towards you wondering why they couldn't have hot dogs too? Let's face it, a typical 11-year old's idea of a great dinner is a hot dog cooked over an open fire, so it get's than nice, crispy skin (heck - I love slightly charred hot dogs and I'm way older than 11).

With no disrespect meant to the nice person who has informed us of this new tool, my first thought was: "So the BSA has finally gotten on board the "Twitterverse" - must mean that Twitter's on its way out and something new is about to eat Twitter's lunch". It does sound like a nice new tool for people to use, though.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

I don't think Trustworthy is as much about doing the right thing (I consider than being Ethical - it's part of being Trustworthy but being Trustworthy is part of being Ethical) as much as it is about doing what you say you're going to do. If you say you will take a tent home and dry it out but bring it back full of mildew, you've shown you won't do what you've promised to do so you're not being very Trustworthy. I think that's where the honesty comes in. It's not neccessarily about answering someone who asks if a dress makes them look fat (which can be answered truthfully, if tactfully, by saying something like "it's not really flattering to your beautiful figure" or "it has a very peculiar fit" which blames the dress - a skill most 12 year olds don't have yet as it is in being truthful and honest about your abilities - if asked if you can take home a tent to air it out and you don't really have the space, the trustworthy thing is to explain that you don't have the space, or the time but you can take come the cook kits and wash instead.

Speaking of facts not in evidence: "the vicitim interrupted your chain by following Zimmerman back to his truck and verbally assaulting him followed by a battery during which having issued a verbal threat to Zimmermans life he reached for the licensed registered weapon Zimmerman had for his own self defense" That's not a fact - that's allegedly Zimmerman's side of the story as presented by family members - we don't have Trayvon's side of the story because Zimmerman killed Trayvon. We have no other eyewitnesses that say Zimmerman was returning to his truck and Martin started following him. Just Zimmerman's word - and a good investigator doesn't believe a shooters story right out of the box. "On that note, Realizing we are relying on the living persons testimony in the real situation, the deceased didn't ask why he was following, a good citizen would understand that in a new neighborhood the neighborhood watch wouldn't know who they were and they might stick out and thus come under observation, he asked if the other "had a problem"." A "good citizen"? What the heck is that supposed to imply, that Trayvon wasn't a good citizen? Most people would call me a good citizen - if some clown started following me, I don't think the first thought would be "neighborhood watch" - I'd be wondering what this clown's problem was, and would likely confront them. I'd probably even demand to know if the other guy "had a problem". When I think of Neighborhood Watch, I think of someone at home noticing something suspicious and calling the cops - I don't think of some armed one-man posse out patrolling the neighborhood. Zimmerman is alive to make all sorts of claims and allegations - that he was confronted, that he was returning to his truck, that Trayvon threw the first punch, that Trayvon was reaching for his gun (how did Trayvon even know Zimmerman had a concealed gun?), that Trayvon was beating him for a minute before he pulled his gun. No one is around to counter those claims - and that's all they are, claims - not fact - claims. Beavah spells out what we know as facts pretty well - Zimmerman called the police to report someone he thought was suspicious, Zimmerman followed Trayvon, even after being told it wasn't neccessary, Zimmerman ultimately shot and killed Trayvon. Everything that Zimmerman has said is not fact, just story, and what his family has said is not fact, just hearsay. In the meantime, how do we prepare our Scouts? Don't wear hoodies, don't buy skittles, don't carry a swiss army knife (it has a screwdriver - could be called a "burglary tool"), run like a deer if they think they're being followed? As disgusting as it was that Zimmerman was not arrested, with the case being investigated and a judge/jury deciding if it was self defense, I understand that's a result of Florida law - which, as I understand it, opens up police departments to civil lawsuits with huge damage awards if a person claims self defense, is arrested and brought to trial, and is subsequently found to have acted in self-defense (a law which is, in itself, disgusting), I think the most disgusting thing coming out of this is the continuing attempt to paint Trayvon as a thug, as a bad citizen, as the bad guy here, when he was, to all accounts, a typical and normal 17 year old boy who sometimes gets in trouble at school (I think about when I went to school - an empty baggie would have gotten you a lecture, now, even sniffing a beer could get you suspended). Trayvon is the victim - of Zimmerman and of some really bad law in Florida. It's become a common trope to use racism as a factor in incidents like this and I try not to automatically assume racism when others are quicker to make that judgement - but that doesn't stop me from wondering if racism is part of the story. I do think there might be some racism going on here - but I'm not sure it's Zimmerman that's the racist here. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some latent racism going on with some of the police officers - it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the investigation was less rigorous because someone thought it's just another dead black kid. Where I do think the racism is coming from is from outside the event. I think we're seeing it in this smear job against Trayvon - and I wonder if that's because the defenders of these stand your ground and self defense and concealed weapons laws know that these laws have just been exposed as very bad law by a situation that they thought would be a "no brainer" to folks and that they need to make Trayvon out to be just another black gangbanger rather than someone who gains a lot of sympathy.

"or Martin a thug who found more trouble than he was looking for" So where does this idea that Martin was a thug come from? Just because some jack-a-ninnies are attempting to smear Martin's reputation in trying to justify their support of Zimmerman and/or the laws that have led to this mess, doesn't mean we should be accepting and re-broadcasting such smears. Geraldo declares that any black or hispanic youth wearing a hoodie is likely to be a thug and people accept that instead of thinking Geraldo is just plain stupid? Having an empty "marijuana" baggie in a school backpack makes one a thug? Heck, in the 70's, it was likely that 15% of the lockers at my white-bread suburban high school had full baggies of marijuana - were my classmates thugs? So what's going to be the next charge against Trayvon - that he colored outside the lines when he was in kindergarten? Was there a rush to judgement in calling Zimmerman a racist? Yes - but the cure to that is not to then start trying to call Zimmerman's victim a thug.

So how did the stone soup taste?

"You gotta wonder what they mean by 'Fencing Associations'. Chain-link or foil?" Snow. The talks are centering around how the snow fencing folks can become the official sponsors of OKPIK

I read the article and have decided that it's nothing but whining by an under 35er who has no idea what net worth means or how the average middle class person builds net worth. "In 1984, American breadwinners who were sixty-five and over made ten times as much as those under thirty-five. The year Obama took office, older Americans made almost forty-seven times as much as the younger generation." What the writer here is comparing is relative net worth (though the sloppy writing leaves an impression that he could be talking salary - does Esquire not have any editors). Anyone with even the barest understanding of personal economics will understand that +65ers will have a greater net worth than -35ers. They'll also understand that for most people, their net worth is tied up in their homes, and its not the value of your home (which, until you sell your home, is just a fantasy number) that determines net worth but your equity in your home (the amount of principle you've paid) and that most people's net worth builds at a greater rate after the age of 50, when kids are starting to leave college, mortgages are being paid off (or the interest/principle equation flips building up more equity in your home at a faster rate then first starting out (for those unfamiliar, many, if not most, mortgages are set up so you pay more interest than principle at first (banks like to make sure they get their money first) and eventually you start paying more principle than interest)), and 401K plans are fuller. One might be tempted to suggest that higher salaries has something to do with it, but that's generally only if the person sinks more into their 401k's or starts investing in the stock market - one would think that the savings rates would be greater but NPR reported a few months ago that the average 55 year old's savings isn't much more than the average 25 year olds. The writer is quick to blame government for all the woes of the greater discrepancy but it's mostly due to greater housing prices (25 years ago, the median price for a home was about 80K, todays it about 212K) so when you bought a home in 1984, you paid less, likely had a greater initial equity investment, and the value of your home has increased by a factor of about 2.5 since your purchase - if you buy a home now, you're paying more, may have had a much lower initial equity investment, and you haven't paid enough of your mortgage to build up more equity and haven't owned it long enough to increase in value. We also can't discount that college students are graduating with greater debt due to increased costs of attending college - and it's not just because tuition has gone up - we also have to take into account that over the past 10 years or so, more folks than ever before are considering grad school as a primary focus after graduation rather than a job, and that students are taking out larger student loans than they used to so that they can live a lifestyle they're used to from home. Let's not forget that there is a significant number of people in "Gen Y" that are delaying starting careers and families to pursue other interests after college and that's going to drop that average as well. What's more interesting to me is the comparison of the 65+ folks from 1984 to today. The average net worth for this group was about 120K and now it's about 170K - in 25 years, it's only increased by 50K - to make matters worse, that 120K of 1984 dollars, adjusted for current, is about 225K - so today's 65+ folks have actually lost ground over the past 25 years - evidence, I think, of a greater overall war on the Middle Class.

You have 6 youth slots and 7 lads ready to give you firm commitments complete with down payments? Unless you have at least one youth who can't make a firm commitment to the activity, I'd be cancelling and planning an activity that all of them can attend together rather than leaving it to chance - and if I did leave it to chance, there would be no one that gets in automatically - everyone gets the same chance and if you lose an advisor over that, find another adult to go. Unfortunately, this is not a case of having 6 spots and 10 people, or a case where someone is obviously an outlier (is the only Scout in the group that is 2nd class, or 13 - well, except tha lad that's about to age out) and a decision can be made based on that - in this case you're going to have 1 - just 1 - Scout that will be left out - and that's going to hurt the lad no matter how he is "culled" out. My suggestion, before you "cull" someone out, is to call the parents to ask if the committment will be firm on their end or if it would be best to make their son a back-up crew member in case someone else has to drop out.

So what do you tell a 17 year old Scout who is being followed by a 23-year old male stranger and who has no idea why the guy is following him? What do you tell him to do when that stranger confronts him? Though the majority of crimes against children and teenagers are committed by people that know them, have we forgotten that there have been some pretty high profile cases of kids being abducted by strangers for nefarious purposes? Have we forgotten that John Walsh of America's Most Wanted got his start after the abduction of his son Adam and that Walsh lives in Florida? Have we forgotten how heavily we teach "stranger danger" in our school system? Though we know, in retrospect, that Zimmerman called 911, Trayvon didn't know that - what might he have been thinking of when he was acosted by Zimmerman? I imagine I'd be trying to fight the guy off too. All of the reports I've read has Zimmerman calling the police from his car, and being advised by Police Dispatch not to follow after saying he would follow the kid. In my book, once Zimmerman got out of his car and started to follow Trayvon, Zimmerman became the agressor, and it was Trayvon who was "standing ground", not Zimmerman. Is the "Standing Ground" law so flawed that the original agressor can claim protection under that law if their victim starts to get the better of them? If I were to start assaulting someone and they stood ground by pulling a gun, and I pulled my own gun and shot them first, can I really claim I wa standing ground or self-defense? I think what's making people really upset about this whole thing is that it's turned the true victim into the criminal and the criminal into the victim. Yes, I call Zimmerman a criminal - in any other circumstance, a 23 year old man confronting a 17 year old boy who is doing nothing but walking back to the home he is visiting after walking to the store, would have been arrested and jailed on the spot.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

So I had to get a piece of rope out and try it to see if it makes a difference. I tie square knots Right Under Over then Right Over Under. If I tie them Right Over Under then Right Under Over I get the same not. If I tie it Right Over Under then Left Over Under I get the same know. Of course if I tie it Left Under Over then Left Over Under, or Left Over Under then Left Under Over, or Left Over Under and Right Over Under I get - a square knot. I see no difference in the knot after tying it be these different methods, but if someone does, then just turn the knot upside down and make them happy. The requirements say tie a square knot - I don't believe it says anything about using a preferred method.

It sounds like you're asking how you would wear the silver loops and the camp staff patch after the camp season ends (or before it begins). I'm afraid in regards to the silver loops, you wouldn't. If camp staff wears silver loops on camp staff uniforms (and check with your camp director to see if that's the case), then they wear them for the duration they are employed and actively working at camp. You don't start wearing them until you start working, and you stop wearing them once your summer contract has expired since you're no longer Council "staff". Before camp starts and when camp ends, you wear the loops of the program you're in. As for the camp staff patch, when camp ends, you would treat it like a temporary patch that would go on your right shirt pocket - and you can wear that on your Boy Scout uniform for as long as you want. Unless your Troop has a rule about how long you can wear a temporary patch (which I hope they don't, by the way), you can wear it as your temporary patch for the rest of your Scouting life, if you want. When I was a Scout, we had Scouts that would put the patch from their first camporee on and leave it there through successive camporees, klondikes, and summer camps - and the patch wouldn't change until they outgrew the shirt, then whichever was the latest would go on the new shirt (I suspect neither the Scout nor "mom" wanted to sew a new patch on the shirt every other month). Others would change the patch every time they got a new one (and plastic patch holders got very popular amongst them). Others would put on their summer camp patch and that's the one that they would always have on their uniform shirt, and others would put the coolest looking patch they got on their shirt and wouldn't change it until the next cool patch came along (one year, our OA Lodge had patches made up for the Spring Ordeal Weekend made up to look like outhouses since the big job that weekend was to build all new outhouses in all of the campsites at summer camp - the design of the patch matched the design of the new outhouses - that patch stayed on a lot of uniforms for a very long time cause it was one of the most unusual looking patches we ever had). If the camp staff is considered a venturing crew, then it's possible you will end up needing a venturing shirt that you would put all of this on, in which case, at the end of camp, hang it in the closet as a souvenier of the summer, just as it is. That's where one of my staff shirts from my time at a National High Adventure Base has ended up - gold loops and all (the rest were stripped of patches and loops and donated to a local troops uniform closet).

So what's the age range of the guys he was talking to? If were talking older Scouts close to aging out that aren't even Life yet, what the SM said applies - but if we're talking about a group of guys 15 and under, then the SM is out of line and should be replaced by the COR immediately for not having the ability to understand that EVERY SINGLE SCOUT CAN BE AN EAGLE, IF THEY WANT TO BECOME AN EAGLE.

Moose - sorry, I was referring to something Qwaze posted in one of his answers. And I still think MIB and MIBDIL owe you a profuse apology (no such thing as something said half in jest) and a $100 gift card to your favorite store, for being such pills about it.

"We have picked up bags to find out we have been given dog food, bird food, fish food and even a plastic jug of kitty litter!" Were they new or were they partially used? If new, they could be dropped off at a pet shelter or veterinarian's office (they often know of some clients that are struggling but still want to take good care of their pets), and some food pantry's, especially smaller ones run by churches or in small towns, are glad to offer them up to people they're giving food to when those folks also have pets to care for. I do like the idea of just going door to door one Saturday. One Cub Scout Pack in our district arranged to man a donation table at all 5 grocery stores in town - they got a lot of donations - both in food, and in cash - and it was fresh items. They handed out suggestions as folks were coming in, and they thought about 60% of the folks donated at least one item on the list. Saturday's are the busiest shopping day here, and people really do respond to Scouts (Cub, Boy, Brownie and Girl) asking for donations of food for the food pantries.

When I participate in buckskinning re-enactments, I call the clothes I'm wearing "clothes", but I recognize that they are a costume. Anyone who calls them "regalia" is laughed at behind their back, or more often, laughed in their face. If I were a RenFaire participant, playing a part in the royal court, I might call it "regalia" but I doubt it - I would probably call it clothes and recognize that it's a costume. The American Indian dancers that I speak with call their dance outfits either outfits or clothes. None of them refer to it as regalia, and they consider people who call it regalia to be posers and wannabes - often using the term "stupid white man" when they hear it. Now if you want to call your dance clothing an outfit - feel free. But there really is no difference between white boys wearing American Indian garb at a ceremony and white boys wearing American Indian garb dancing - you are portraying someone or something from a different culture - you are wearing a costume.

They were wrong - you were right. They were the ones attempting to add to the requirements, not you. The requirement is "submit a report". It isn't "submit a verbal report" - verbal would be adding to the requirement. It is up to the Merit Badge Counselor to decide how a report is submitted. Most of us would think submit a report means written - and good luck convincing a teacher or professor that cornering them in their office for 15 minutes while you give a verbal presentation is equivalent to submitting a report. On the other hand, as Merit Badge Counselor, you could allow, at YOUR discretion, to have the report submitted as a verbal report, or even smoke signals. The Scout has the option to find a new counselor if he doesn't want to submit the report as the counselor prefers. As for what I would have done to these "helicopter parents"? Probably told them to get out of my sight until they were ready to come back and apologize profusely for their lack of respect, said apology being accompanied by a $100 gift card to my favorite store. Qwaze - the EDGE method doesn't preclude the written word - written instructions, directions and descriptions fit in quite nicely with "Explain", just as representational drawings (of say, a knot and how to tie it) would. Someone using EDGE correctly is going to include bot written and verbal explanations to make sure they cover preferred learning styles of the people they are teaching. Some people need someone to tell them, some just need to see it written down (or drawn out), others need someone to show them, and others need all three. As for the CC refusing to sign the application - which application is that? The MBC who had misgivings about signing the blue card, did she sign it then have second thoughts or did she not sign it? If she didn't sign it, what application would the CC be signing? If she signed it, then what is there for the CC to sign? The MB is earned at that point.

"From where did the anti-immigrant thing come?" To be a leader in AHG, you must be an American Citizen. You can delude yourself into thinking this isn't anti-immigrant, but I can't think of a better way to discourage immigrant families from joining than requiring leaders to be American citizens.

Boy Scouts: Popcorn and declaration of religious principles that are mostly winked and nodded at. AHG: Anti-immigrant and statement of faith - oh, and incredibly small. Girl Scouts: Girl Scout Cookies. Advantage? Girl Scouts.