CalicoPenn

Miki - the President didn't need your hint, and he didn't struggle like T.R. - he announced right away that the prize money would be donated to charity. I find it rather disturbing that instead of having feelings of pride for the United States that the President was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, many people would rather gripe and pick nits about it. I doubt most people actually read the citation, the reason it was given. I doubt most people actually understand what the prize is all about - perhaps because of the word "prize"? There is no rule that says there must be an accomplishment - most of the prizes that are given are not for any specific accomplishment, but for fostering a climate where peace can hold sway. Like it or not, President Obama has certainly done so in the eyes of most of the world. I frankly don't care if some right winger or Republican is upset because they don't think it's deserved or fair. Sure, the President may have been nominated within weeks of his inauguration, but the award wasn't chosen until recently - it is his words, his speeches, his world-wide "apology" tour (as the right wing yobs would call it), his opening up of dialogue, and returning the US to the diplomatic stage that was recognized. Yes, he's done far more in the past 8 months than most of us will ever do to try to foster peace. Congrats, Mr. Obama, on the Nobel Peace Prize. You've brought honor to the United States of America.

Yep, I can see where the USOC might have an inflated sense of worth. When the television rights to the games are one of the most significant sources of funds for the Olympics, and over 50% of the television revenue is generated in the United States, I can understand why the USOC may feel a bit protective and want to make sure they get a proportionate share of that pie. The USOC seems to have enough ammo to make a case that is it wasn't for the revenue generated in the US, the Olympics would be as relevant as the World's Fair.

Well, they can demand anything they want. And you can tell them to prove you raised funds at the fair, otherwise go scratch. If they push it, give them 20 bucks, tell them this was the amount raised, and that the unit will not be allowing FOS presentations for the next 5 years.

Based on the description of how you're dressing, you're dressing to retain the heat you've already generated for comfort as soon as you hit the sack. Unfortunately, all you're doing is retaining heat - you're not generating heat. Sleeping bags keep people warm throughout the night because the body generates heat which infuses itself in the air pockets of the sleeping bag filling, which then increases the insulation properties of the sleeping bags (the same principle works with the insulation in a home, thats why insulation is installed with the paper backing out rather than in, so the heat of the house can penetrate into the insulation). Clean, fresh clothes at night - polypro or flannel long underwear is usually enough. I put a fleece sweatshirt in my bag with me (but don't wear it) which I may end up putting on later in the evening as the sleeping bag starts to lose it's insulating properties, which will carry me through the night and into the morning (as long as the brain believes the core of the body is protected and warm, it will stay nice and calm - once the brain decides the core is in danger, it will try to warm it up rapidly which it does by shunting less blood to the extremities and forcing the nervous system to start the shivering process - shivering is the bodies way of trying to warm itself up). It's pretty rare to go into a full blown shiver without a little prior warning - a few pre-shivers that seem to just start to loosen the muscles to prepare them for what's coming - I usually wake up with this, toss on the sweatshirt, and everything settles back down - I keep the sweatshirt in bed with me so that it's already warm when I put it on - then I don't need to generate a lot of heat to get it warm. Double pad is definitely suggested, but don't use a blow-up air mattress - a thermarest and a closed cell pad is the way to go - air is a wonderful conductor of cold, and a blow up air mattress will just conduct the cold in the ground right up through the tent floor - may as well just sleep on the ground with no padding. Are you car camping? If so, you might try using flannel sheets and a couple of good wool blankets instead of a sleeping bag. Has the advantage of having more layers for insulating, and an advantage of less restrictive movement. Mummy bags and sleeping bags tend to restrict our movements, and movement does provide a bit of heat - I tend to curl up a bit on my side when I sleep, which also adds to the heat protection of the core.

I'll be gentle as I take that foot out of your mouth for you. According to the GOA, units are allowed to select an adult only if a youth has been elected at a unit election. If an election is held, and no youth is elected, the unit does not get an adult selection that year.

Hmmm - interesting question - and probably one best answered by the Chapter or Lodge Adviser only because I don't know what your particular Lodge would do. In general, for Units, they can nominate an adult member "upon holding an election" in which at least one youth has been elected in. In my Lodge, we've always interpeted that to mean that the eligibility on numbers of adults is based on the number of youth registered and "active" at the time of the election. By flirting with 50, what do you mean? You have 47 + 4 over the age of 18 but under the age of 21? You meet the criteria for nominating 2 adults. Otherwise, just hold off on the election until after the crossover. If you have 30 lads at the meeting, a Scout only needs 15 votes to be elected. I'd only worry about brand new members if they would throw off the numbers greatly - say 6 of 10 are new and you need 5. But say 6 of 30 are new? 15 votes should still be doable. On active, I did mispeak a bit - the OA's definition of active is have a current membership card and participate in "some" unit activities. It's not that they don't define active, it's that their definition of active is so loosey-goosey that they may as well have not defined it at all - there is no definitive definition of "some". So that gives the Scoutmaster wide latitude to define what active means in the context of "some".

Ahh - the old "Active" conundrum. The OA does not define active - here it gives the Scoutmaster wide latitude in defining the term Active. Because OA is not a rank, and the OA is not a required part of a Unit's programming, the decision of a Scoutmaster on determining who is eligible within the guidelines is pretty much non-appealable. In general, though - it seems the units with the strongest programs are also those that recognize the value of the Order of the Arrow, and that those units that recognize the value of OA don't tend to be over the top on the requirements. In my experience, those units want as many people as possible to become a member.

1) My Side of the Mountain - story of a Scout-age boy that heads into the mountains of NY to live on his own. 2) The Fieldbook 3) Who Moved My Cheese - a short management book on dealing with change

TCD - the answer is 2 - if the Scoutmaster certifies that all 47 Scouts and the 4 under 21 ASM's are all active. The ratio that John states holds that it's not just 1 adult for every (up to) 50 youth, but they be active as well. Because it's for the OA, you would use the OA's definition of "youth". That's how I read it, that's how it's always been interpreted in my Lodge. When I was a Lodge Vice-Chief, we actually spent some time at a meeting trying to figure this out because there was a unit that had a similar situation - they had 49 Scouts - but they had 6 under-21 ASM's. Some were arguing that the rules meant they were allowed 1 adult nomination, some were arguing they were allowed 2 - the Chapter Chief and Adviser wanted to get the Lodge interpretation - I was leaning towards the answer I gave above - and one of the Advisers, who happened to be an attorney, gave as his wise counsel something that has stuck with me. He said "If National OA had meant "youth" to mean under 21 in this instance, they would have used the term "Scouts", which all of us agree is a youth member under 18. They didn't use Scouts, they used "Youth", which the OA defines as being under 21." As for the Supreme Chief of the Fire nominating and approving 18 year olds - the OA gives that person wide latitude - it's wide enough to potentially allow the SCF to make a 16 year old a candidate without going through election, say a person working at summer camp who has not been elected by his unit (perhaps because the unit leader soesn't believe in the OA"

The only people who consider the IOC vote a "persoanl rebuke" against the President of the United States are people who are eager to grasp at any perceived slight as a slap against this particular President. The IOC vote wasn't a personal rebuke against Obama - had he not been there, the results were likely to be the same. The only people who had Chicago as a front runner were pundits in US Media - no one in the world's media had Chicago in the top 2. Few people had doubts that Rio would end up with it (they bid more money than anyone else, and South America has never had an Olympics). That Chicago made it to the top 4 was one heck of a coup, considering the scandal surrounding the Salt Lake City Olympics (which exposed the massive graft and corruption of the IOC), the terrorism attack on the Atlanta games (which is still fresh in the minds of some of the members of the IOC), the moronic roadblocks the US has put up against world travelers since 9-11, and the still burning fight between the IOC and the USOC over US television rights (the most profitable part of any games, as it turns out - and the USOC wants its share) and the USOC's idea to develop an Olympics Channel during the Olympics to develop a stream of revenue for the USOC with the IOC getting a small piece of that pie. Why isn't anyone, in any media outlet, calling the votes against Tokyo and Madrid a personal slap against the Prime Minister of Tokyo or the King and Queen of Spain? It's because everyone knows, on the face of it, how ridiculous that sounds. It's just as ridiculous to claim it has any significance on the part of Barack Obama.

In 1993, the biggest obstacle to health care reform was that "The President 9and his wife) is going to push this on Congress without Congress being involved, and it's Congress that should be taking the lead". Now we have a President who has presented to the Congress the broad canvas for what Health Care Reform should look like and what his hopes are that it contains, and leaves it to Congress to work out the details because that's what Congress does, and that's not good enough? Is there anything that will satisfy the naysayers short of the GOP plan for health care reform that was waved around in President Obama's face when he spoke to a joint session of Congress - a plan that turned out the be readily available by the ream in any office supply store in the country - a blank sheet of paper? Probably not. That 8 soldiers gave their lives in Afghanistan this past weekend is a tragic loss. That President Obama isn't acting like a Cowboy-in-Chief and won't commit more soldiers to Afghanistan at a General's request (a General that works for him, not the other way around) without giving serious thought to the strategy in Afghanistan, and suggestions for a change in strategy (as proposed by other people in the DOD, including the Secretary of Defense - a Republican who is opposed to sending more troops into Afghanistan right now) is a testament to his character, and does honor to those soldiers that died by ensuring that their deaths don't just lead to any more deaths by other soldiers.

When we get our news from internet blogs, and when our news media gets their news from internet blogs, and we consider that news to be substantive, we're destined to fail. A blogger on Huff Post says that most Chicagoans were against the Olympics - and now that's fact? Nope - the facts are the Chicagoans were pretty evenly split with 47% opposed with 49% supportive - accounting for the margin of error, that's pretty darn close to a statistical tie. But if we ignore the margin of error, 49% still beats out 47% so a correct statement would be "Most Chicagoans supported the Olympics", and the statement that most Chicagoans opposed the Olympics would be a lie. Our media is now driven by opinion rather than fact. If the facts don't support the opinion, it doesn't matter. All that matters is who can shout their opinion the loudest, because as we know, he who shouts the loudest must be right. Will Obama "fail"? Maybe - but if he does, so will the next President, and the one after that, and the one after that, until we break this cycle of the politics of the personal that began during the Clinton administration, continued under Bush, and it readily apparent under Obama.

Until 2006, Heads of State just didn't go to the final IOC Congress Meetings, so none of the Presidents prior to that time would have been expected to go. In 2006, Tony Blair went, and helped London get the 2012 games. This was a game changing moment. It's telling that the Heads of State of Brazil, Japan and Spain all went to Copenhagen. For President Obama not to go, would have looked very odd in this new reality. Mitt Romney, who headed up the Salt Lake City games has even suggested that President Obama really had to go, and future Presidents will also be wise to go as well. How would it have looked to the world had President Obama not gone to Copenhagen when the Heads of State of the other three countries did go - especially with President Obama being from Chicago? Some say he wasted political capital - I'd say his graciousness before, and especially after the vote is a gain for the US in the world's eyes - he's shown that Americans truly can be gracious in defeat, and not the spoiled brat that many in the world saw us as during the last administration. Yep, Chicago lost out (though about half of the city would disagree). What I find interesting is that a major concern of the IOC was that Chicago was planning on creating temporary facilities, and wasn't planning on spending as much as Rio bid. I'd suggest that this speaks volumes about the fantasy world the IOC members seem to be living in, and their lack of understanding of economic realities. Not to knock Rio here, but it's rather ironic that Rio had bid billions more than anyone else, and the IOC seems to accept that Rio can get that kind of money when it announced just last week that it was being forced to cancel a World Cup swimming event planned for next month because it couldn't afford it. Rio can't afford a swim meet, how does it expect to afford the Olympics? Much has been said by critics in Chicago about the debt the Olympics put cities in - Athens, Beijing, even Montreal, which is still apparently paying off debts from 1976! What I found most interesting is that these critics haven't listed the cities that didn't find themselves mired in debt caused by the Olympics - and there is a commonality to the list: Los Angeles, Atlanta, Salt Lake City - note all from the US. It appears that US Cities don't fall into debt because of the Olympics, while cities from elsewhere do. Cities that have hosted the Olympics complain that they now have venues that are vacant and essentially unusable. Chicago put together a plan that would allow for both temporary facilities, to be removed when the games ended, and for easy conversion of permanent facilities to become useful after the games. The IOC didn't like that - can't have something that doesn't result in a permanent monument to waste, can we? Alas, I believe John is quite right in stating that Rio got it because they stuffed more into the pockets of the IOC members. I think it would be interesting if the US were to force the World Court to conduct a criminal enterprise investigation into the IOC.

I just want to riff on something I saw in the original post: "At a parent meeting, we were discussing if each boy's sales should be used to cover his share of the costs, or all pooled together & the uncovered costs divided equally." I've heard this before in discussions of Scout Accounts (and suspect this is one of the prime reasons that Scout Accounts have, in my opinion, strayed off course). Though it may not have been said, I probably wouldn't be wrong in stating that at the very least, in the back of some parents' minds, was the thinking that commonly is brought up as "My kid raised $X.XX during the fundraising drive, and that kid raised on $Y.YY - why should that kid benefit the same as my kid from the hard work my kid put into the fundraising drive". You were fortunate, in a way, to have a tax accountant nip that thinking in the bud by stating a reality of fundraising accounting. My response would have been a bit more blunt. I would have suggested that the fundraising was done to support the TEAM, that every person on the team has strengths and weaknesses and that all the members of the team help with the weaknesses and benefit from the strengths of the other. If the kid (more likely the parent) can't display teamwork off ice, what does that say about the teamwork potential on ice? If I were the coach, I'd suggest they get with the program and join the team, or find the door.

I've been opposed to "Scout Accounts" consistently - and this is one of the reasons why. I suspect that it's not unknown that Scout units put these accounts together, but that the amounts in consideration are relatively small enough that it doesn't meet an actionable threshold. I suspect in general that people who donate (or purchase popcorn, or whatever) understand that it's going to help support the Scout's program, and will help Scouts go camping, etc. and probably won't mind terribly much if some of it goes into a Scout Account that helps Bobby pay for summer camp. Buying personal gear? As Beavah suggests, not a good idea - and I know that I would not be so quick to pull out my wallet if I knew that some of the money was going to buy Bobby a backpack of his very own (not to be confused with a backpack for the Troop to loan out to Bobby when he needs it - I'd support that). In this case, my take on "A Scout Pays His Own Way" is that a Scout comes and mows my lawn, or shovels my driveway, and earns his very own money. When raising funds for the Troop, the Scout is helping the Unit pay it's own way. It should be fairly obvious that if a Scout leaves the unit, any money in a "Scout Account" that he, or his family, has not directly deposited in it stays with the unit. Writing a check to the now ex-Scout pretty much crosses that gray line we've created. I have always suggested the same goes for transfering "Scout Accounts" from Cub Scout Packs to Boy Scout Troops. Sure, the lad is still a Scout, but you're transfering Pack assets to a Scout Troop. My youth Troop had "Scout Accounts" - but no money came from shares of fundraising - it was actually more like a "christmas club" account at a bank - we deposited money with the Troop Treasurer every week, or month, or as we could which helped save for Summer Camp, or special trips, or could even be used for a weekend trip. If you really want Scout Accounts, consider this model - it's a bit truer, in my opinion, to the notion that "A Scout Pays His Own Way"

What's wrong with Pi? Did someone transpose a number somewhere?

Dog is a myth!

If your pack is designed so the vertical stabilizing bars can not come out (because they are sewn in), then don't remove them. If it's designed so they can come out, then it's generally safe to remove them - but mark them RF and LF(for Right Front, Left Front) at the top of the bar (I determined the orientation based on the way I hold my pack in front of me when I'm packing it) so that they get put back the way they were taken out. The packs with removable bars are designed so that the bar can be adjusted to the curvature of one's back. Most of these are in flapped pockets - with a top flap that velcros down which holds the bar in. As long as you keep the orientation correct, and don't overly bend or twist them, they should slide back in fairly easily. If you can remove the bars, then you can easily turn the pack inside out to clean it. Now for cleaning - I like the suggestions given so far about Woolite, or some other gentle soap. What I don't agree with is soaking it in a tub of water. Unless you've had a bottle of maple syrup explode in your pack (as an example), there should be no reason to soak an entire pack. There are parts of an internal frame pack that just doesn't take soaking well - like the straps (which are usually foam filled for comfort) or the lumbar support pad (also foam filled). The packs are also water resistant - soaking the pack pretty much removes any water resistance you have - be prepared to re-seal seams and the pack itself. Instead, you want to spot hand wash with a sponge (only use a brush as a very last resort - and very gently - if your pack is truly 100% nylon, that material doesn't take rigourous scrubbing well - unlike a 60/40 denier cloth (which is a nylon/cotton mix - cotton can take the abuse, and mitigates the affect on the nylon), or canvas (which is 100% cotton)). Be prepared to re-treat for water-resistance if needed - but treating a small spot is much easier than trying to treat a full pack. If you've pulled the backpack out of the closet and it now has a funky, mildewed smell (with corresponding mold growth), you're better off consigning the pack to the dustbin of memory and getting a new pack. If it's not stinking the joint up, then clean away - by hand, and gently.

I'm of the opinion that too many Scouters and Committee members (BOR) look at Scout Spirit as if it's in a vacumm, and that's why some come across as using it as an obstruction or brake. There are going to be times when Scout Spirit should come in to play - most of us can name specific things that we'd agree falls well outside Scout Spirit parameters, such as bullying. It's those events we look at and don't come to common consensus, perhaps something like Johnny Scout was crabby at a campout 3 months ago and snapped at his SPL, but other than that one time, he's always pretty cheerful, and a good kid to have around. We forget that Scout Spirit has other components to it - the Scout Oath and the Scout Law - then we forget that the Scout Oath has a particular phrase in it that individuates the Oath and Law to the Scout, not the group. "I will do my best". Is a Scout doing the best they can but still slip up on points of the Scout Law or the Oath? I'd argue they've met the Scout Spirit requirements.

Best way to keep the skills fresh? Use them - and practice them when they're skills you hope you never have to use (like First Aid skills). On campouts, build things needing knot skills and lashing skills. Cook over open fires when you're able. Make games out of them - who says District Camporees are the only places to have scouting contests? Why can't units hold contests of their own on camping trips? You don't have to plan a full days worth - just one or two a trip is all you need. You can teach all you want - but until the Scouts start using the skills, it won't mean a thing. They'll remain concepts until they find a use in real life for them. It's like learning algebra, geometry or trigonometry - we wonder about the relevance in our lives until we have to actually use it, then it makes sense.

Here's how I would handle this - I would find the passages in the Cub Scout/BSA literature that state a uniform is required and show it to the parents. That's how I would handle it, if there were any such passages. I can save myself a lot of time though, because I know there are no such passages in BSA literature. Yes, one of the methods of Cub Scouting is the Uniform - but the BSA doesn't actually require that a Cub Scout have a uniform - it certainly recommends it, but it doesn't require it. The methods are tools to help achieve the purposes of Cub Scouting - in the BSA's eyes, as long as the purposes are achieved, it's all good. There really isn't anyhing in any of the purposes of Cub Scouting that requires a uniform to achieve - the uniform can help, but it's not going to prevent the achievement of any of the purposes if one isn't worn. Now I'm not suggesting that the issue of the uniform be dropped - I just wouldn't push it (the young lad who is no longer involved because the parents pulled him from the program rather than buy a uniform will quite possibly have as his main memory of Cub Scouts as the "group that threw him out because he didn't have a uniform" - what are the chances his kids will become Scouts when he has a family?). I would just be a bit more gentle - peer pressure will accomplish what you won't be able to - in time, he's going to start asking his parents why he can't have a uniform when all his friends have one. And don't assume by outward appearances that the family has plenty of money. I live in the suburbs of Chicago - I'm watching as folks around me, who by all outward appearances had plenty of money, are losing their homes and cars. Too many people have more credit than money and they may be driving a fancy car or SUV and live in a nice looking home, but could be eating rice and beans or macaroni and cheese behind closed doors. Not everyone is comfortable talking to people about their financial/home situation. Does the Pack have a uniform closet? Then just give the lad a shirt - without any assumptions behind it. Push for the book though - and if Mom doesn't know how to update Scout Track, then help her update Scout Track - despite the proliferation of computers, not everyone is computer literate, and not everyone has a computer at home.

Billy wants to work on the Hiking or Backpacking merit badges while wearing a cast - would I sign the blue card? Yes I would - both merit badges have requirements that can be done while Billy's leg is in a cast. There is no time limit to complete the merit badge, nor is there any pre-requisite that Billy be ready to hike the next day. Billy can do the non-physical related parts of the badge now and complete the hiking portion of the badge later. If Billy had a signed blue card for either of these merit badges then broke his leg, would you take the blue card away? Jack's parents want him focused on his studies and Jack wants to start Auto Mechanics - would I give him a signed blue card? Again, yes I would. I'm not his parent, it's not my job to control what he does with his time. Mom and dad can monitor and control Jack's time. I'll give a heads-up to mom and dad that Jack has asked for and received a blue card for Auto Mechanics and leave it to them to handle from there. Same question as above, Jack has a couple of outstanding blue cards when mom and dad tell you they want their son to be laser focused on his studies - do you take the blue cards away? Who decides if the boy starts 1 or 100 merit badges at a time? The boy - National is clear that a Scout may work on as many merit badges at one time as he would like. Is this ideal? No - and that's where counseling comes in - but if the lad is determined, there is nothing in any BSA literature that suggests that a Scoutmaster may reign in a lad on the number of merit badges he is working on. The Scoutmaster's approval? It's not a consent (as most people think of the word as), it's an acknowledgement that the Scout has met certain requirements - and there is only one requirement a Scout has to meet to gain the Scoutmaster's approval - be registered in the Boy Scouts of America (read the wording of the application where the Scoutmaster signs - what does the signature represent - hint, that the Scoutmaster is certifying that the Scout is registered and therefore eligible to work on the merit badge). Merit badge midways and colleges? Saying no to these falls within BSA's stance on Merit Badges - this is not their preference - they discourage them (though they could be much more active in discouraging them - it's hard to hold that line when Councils themselves are holding these events) - but when you say no, you can point to the BSA's stance on them to back you up. Say no to a Scout who wants to work on Personal Management because he is too young and I defy you to find anything in the literature that states that Scoutmasters can determine age limits for merit badges - you'll find BSA policy statements that Scouts can work on any merit badge, at any time, but you won't find a single merit badge with an age prerequisite. For those who have been here for some time, they'll know that, as Beavah has stated, I'm quite consistent on my defense of Scouts who have obstacles thrown in their way - and I readily acknowledge that I can be quite firm about this (no doubt because I am someone who did have Eagle awarded on appeal because of the ignorance of some volunteers). I'm not suggesting folks concerns aren't well-thought out (heck - I may even agree with some of them) - I am suggesting that they need to be tempered with what the BSA expects - and that the BSA's expectations are primary.

During George Washington's second term, there were personal attacks directed at him as President. Our country was founded on lack of "respect for the office". King George was viciously lampooned in the run up to the Declaration of Independence. In a way, we owe our existence to a uniquely American sense that no person is owed respect merely for the title s/he holds. We've even gone so far as to enshrine that belief in our Constitution with a ban on titles of nobility. I'm not at all bothered that President Obama appeared on Letterman (or earlier, on the Tonight Show) given, in this media rich times, the number of people who admit that their primary source of news is the late night shows, including the Tonight Show, the David Letterman Show, and the Daily Show. Part of the job of President is to communicate to the people - and to do that, one needs to go to where the people are.

If you refused, as the SM, to sign the lads blue card, then you did the worng thing. You were just fine up until that point. The BSA policies are clear on this - a Scout may work on any merit badge at any time, and may work on any number of merit badges at any time. A Scoutmaster counsels, as you've done - but when a Scout still wants to move forward, the Scoutmaster should sign the application and provide the name (or names) of an MBC. By refusing to sign, you have acted as a gatekeeper - an obstacle - and that is not the job of the Scoutmaster. And you have just decided your judgement takes precedent over the policies of the BSA which state that a Boy can take as many merit badges as HE decides he can handle. Since the advent of the "Troop Only" merit badge counselors, more and more Troops are developing their own training materials and policies on Merit Badges that conflict with National policies - and more and more Scoutmasters and Committees see themselves as some sort of keeper of the sacred. A Scoutmaster gives a Scout the name of a Merit Badge Counselor because the Scoutmaster is the adult that should be interacting with the Scout on a regular basis and would naturally be the one to provide the Scout with the information. When providing the name, the Scoutmaster is ensuring the the MBC is a registered MBC, trusting that the person who provided him the list is giving him an accurate list. The hope is that the Scoutmaster will look over the list and provide a name to the Scout of a counselor that is close to the Scout's neighborhood - it isn't to pick a name from the list that every Scout in the unit WILL go to. National policy also makes clear that the Scout can use ANY registered Merit Badge Counselor that is listed for a badge. If the Scout knows that his neighbor is an MBC for a merit badge he's interested in, then he can use that counselor - he just needs to let his Scoutmaster know so the SM can check the name against his list. If a Scout decides, for any reason, that he doesn't want to use the MBC the Scoutmaster has "assigned" to him, does that mean he doesn't get to work on the badge because the Scoutmaster's assignment is sacrosanct? I surely hope not, for the Scout's sake. If you, as the SM insist that a Scout use an "assigned" counselor, then you have failed the Boy.

Speaking of horse manure, the following just drives me batty: "The Scoutmaster is the gatekeeper." The Scoutmaster is NOT the gatekeeper. The Scoutmaster is a facilitator - he provides the tools and guidance to help a boy be as successful a Scout as the BOY wants to be. A gatekeeper opens and shuts gates to control the flow of traffic, or whatever there is a flow of to control. A gatekeeper opens experiences to some and closes those same experiences to others. The BSA has never intended for Scoutmasters to open experiences to some and close them to others. If you're a Scoutmaster acting as a gatekeeper, then stop it - or find someone else to do the job. If you just took offense to this, then I'm especially speaking to you - you need to really take a hard look at what your doing and and decide if what you're doing is truly benefitting the Scouts or just feeding an ego need for control. When a Scoutmaster signs a blue card, he isn't approving anything, he is informing the Merit Badge Counselor, by his signature on the blue card, that Johnny Scout is indeed a registered Scout which makes him eligible to work on earning a merit badge. This does two things - it keeps the Scoutmaster in the loop on what's going on with the lads and it tells the MBC that the Troop knows the lad is trying to earn the merit badge. You won't find a single space on the blue card that states "Scoutmaster's Approval". The only signature line for "Approval" is the Merit Badge Counselors. The Scoutmaster doesn't "assign" a Merit Badge Counselor to the Scout - he provides the name and number of a Merit Badge Counselor to the Scout. If the Merit Badge Counselor won't work out (for whatever reason) the Scoutmaster should continue to provide names until the Scout has a Merit Badge Counselor. There is no need for the Scoutmaster to fill out the Merit Badge Counselor name section of the application, the Scout or Merit Badge Counselor can do that.