Callooh! Callay!1428010939

Please - surely anyone can see that the SP post above does NOT make the the claim that seeking modern health care is a "white" thing. That SP post articulates that claim in ironic fashion in order to illustrate its absurdity and the general absurdity of anyone claiming that their race or lineage gives them special authority over how others adopt or adapt cultural practices.

"justify the use Native American customs and images by the BSA?" "Justify" it to whom? At a Renaissance Festival, must we justify our use of Renaissance European customs and symbols? Must those of non-European descent seek the approval of people of European descent? Or do we assume people are adults... and just go ahead and have fun with our Renaissance Festival... with no worries over whether or not some crackpot infantile European racist is going to complain that we're treading in his exclusive cultural territory or that we're not showing proper respect to European traditions? Let's not infantilize people because of their race. Just because the cultures of Pre-Columbian North America were inferior to the Western culture that displaced and replaced them.... does NOT mean that the descendents of people who practiced those cultures are inferior human beings. They can handle life's and history's vicissitudes the same as we and our ancestors have. Who among us does not have stone-age ancestors who lived a primitive tribal culture? Who among us does not have ancestors that were done wrong by some other group? Who among us does not have ancestors whose culture has long since been replaced by the culture we live in today? You don't help people get over it by humoring or encouraging the notion that they shouldn't.

Uniform? Full is good. You prefer shirt only? OK. I don't object. But jeans? Please. Jeans are for kids - but not my kids, of course. Jeans are usually cotton. Seriously? Cotton? In this climate? And it doesn't matter what climate you are in... the question still stands as a rebuke to cotton. Cotton is for Q-tips and sheets - mediocre sheets anyway. Jeans. Humbug. If the uniform pants serve any good purpose it's to prevent people from being seen in jeans.

***Spoiler Alert - solution is in this post The contestants' answers were more fun than the solution - the judges will have a hard time deciding which answer was best. But here's the boring solution, listing the campsites and the details on the SM of the Troop in each site, listed in North to South order: In campsite Osprey, Troop 324's SM drinks orange juice, adds requirements to MBs and rank, and sleeps in a Big Agnes backpacking tent. In Campsite Sea Lion, Troop 118's SM drinks YooHoo, stifles boy leadership, and sleeps in an old canvas wall tent. In Campsite Grizzly, Troop 275's SM drinks coffee. His short temper makes him fly off the handle at scouts sometimes. He sleeps in a Coleman dome tent. In Campsite Mule Deer, Troop 764's SM drinks Diet Coke, is lax about curbing a bully, and sleeps in a Kelty backpacking tent. In Campsite Prairie Dog, Troop 123's Scoutmaster Drinks Gatorade, is a helicopter scouter, and sleeps in a Eureka Timberline tent.

Reading the OP from which this is spun and the subsequent explana-complications, I couldn't figure how that post worked as a math or logic puzzle ... "multiple scoutmasters hypothetically did something hypothetically hypothetical at hypothetical times, which one should have take a left turn at Albuquerque?" So I gave up trying to decipher it.... Quitter. Then I read Beavah's translation and answer in that thread and that clarified matters well, assuming the OP was an ethics question rather a math or logic puzzle. That assumption is probably correct. But... for anyone else who was disappointed when they figured out there was no solution to the hypothetical puzzle presented... here's an adaptation of a puzzle for wich there is a solution: There are 5 campsites in a row (running north/south), each named for a different animal, each occupied by a different troop. The scoutmaster of each troop, prefers a different drink, has a different bad habit, and sleeps in a different kind of tent. None of the scoutmaster have the same type of tent, the same bad habit, or prefer the same drink. Troop 275 is in Campsite Grizzly. The Scoutmaster of Troop 123 sleeps in a Euraka Timberline. The Scoutmaster of Troop 118 drinks Yoohoo. Looking from the main path, Campsite Mule Deer is just to the north Campsite Prairie Dog. The Scoutmaster in Campsite Mule Deer drinks Diet Coke. The Scoutmaster with Coleman dome tent sometimes lets his temper run away and yells angrily, later realizing that he ought not have. The scoutmaster in Campsite Osprey adds requirements to make earning merit badges and ranks advancements more difficult. The Scoutmaster in the center campsite drinks coffee. Troop 324 is in the northernmost campsite. The troop whose Scoutmaster stifles boy leadership is camped in the site next to the troop whose Scoutmaster uses a Big Agnes tent. The Scoutmaster who sleeps in an old canvas wall tent is in the site next to the troop whose Scoutmaster adds requirement to merit badges and rank advancments. The Scoutmaster who is a "helicopter scouter" drinks Gatorade. The Scoutmaster of troop 764 is too lax about curbing a bully in his troop. The Troop 324 is camped in the site next to Campsite Sea Lion. The Troop whose Scoutmaster stifles boy leadership is camped next to the troop whose Scoutmaster drinks orange juice. Now the question.... One of the five Scoutmasters sleeps in a Kelty backpacking tent - which one is it? (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!) edited thrice by the grammatically challenged Callooh! Callay!(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Adult vs. Scout? Generally, no... not a good idea. Adult and Scout teams vs each other? Again, generally no... not a good idea. Adult sized scouts vs. child sized scouts... same. I think SP's comments above are good sense in this matter. Adult vs. Adult? OK, if that helps keep you happy with your participation in scouting... but let's keep in gentlemanly and not let it upstage the centrality of events for Boy Scouts.

Before you confront him, watch this: And recall Sgt Hulka's advice to "Psycho" in the movie "Stripes:" "Lighten up, Francis." Anyway, he's probably concerned that the uniform pants make his butt look fat. Let him be. Scout to you: "I don't like the pants, and anyway Mr. USMC doesn't wear them either." You to scout: "Boy leadership. Lead. And consider thanking Mr. USMC for all he does for this troop... you don't even need to mention that you forgive the fact that he isn't perfect." In Cub Scouts, the Pack was "shirts only." The leader specifically asked me just to get shirts for mine; some boys were from poor families, so standard was uniform shirt with whatever pants. When I became a DL, I hewed to the unit's custom of wearing uniform shirt and non-uniform pants, although my instinct tells me uniform is uniform and half uniform is not. These days, when I wear uniform, it's full uniform. But the SM, and others mostly wear just the shirt. I think full uniform is better, but I think no less of them for not wearing it. What I still find awkward is saluting the flag with a scout salute vice the salute I used for a couple decades plus. A few years ago legislation authorized veterans in civilian clothing to render the military hand salute during the National Anthem; later it was amended to include the Pledge of Allegiance (I think - not entirely sure and not going to look it up since I won't be doing it anyway). I thought about that and decided that it wasn't for me. I saluted in uniform, and when I was regularly uniformed, I put my hand over my heart when I was out of uniform. That seems right. What still feels funny is rendering a Boy Scout salute rather than a "normal" one, when in BSA uniform. Have to consciously override longstanding habit.

"the English only crowd?" "those that feel so strongly about English being the only relevant language?" Were they here? No matter. An open forum welcomes straw men; they could be instructive. "I'm not sure what all the fuss is about." The fuss is about some folks' worries over cultural and linguistic trends in this country; they worry when they see WB in Spanish and fail to take into account that it's a foreign outreach event and not Genesis, Chapter 11. If we are enlightened enough to appreciate foreign cultures, we can appreciate the culture of our countrymen and we can sympathize with their concerns over the future of that culture. Because it is changing (has been and will be - that's how existence is), and change is not always "progress" or improvement. There are "immigrants" who come here and behave more like colonists. But we understand that offering WB classes in Spanish is not a manifestation of this phenomenon. This is especially true in light of the fact that the enrollees include visiting members of Scouts de Mexico. And in light of the fact that many native Spanish speakers are fellow Westerners - our cultural cousins. Plus Spanish itself is so easy to learn that, as a language, one wonders if it really should be described as foreign. All scouts and scouters needn't learn English, it's an international movement. But all BSA members should learn English and learn it well; it's part of being prepared in this country. To live here and not learn English is unfriendly, discourteous and unkind. "...also, how many of the English-only crowd have ever TRIED to move to another country (non-English speaking) and speak the language?" The way this group is named, "English-only crowd," makes it a tautological certainty that the answer to that question is zero. But if we expand the definition to include advocates that all US residents and especially all BSA members try to become proficient with English, then the answer is at least one... in spades, like you wouldn't believe. But solid multiple credentials and experience in that regard are irrelevant to the matter because having lived in other countries and learned other languages does not give one special authority over the matter of whether or not residents of the US should learn English. Citizens of the USA learn foreign languages less frequently than citizens of many other places because they have less use for them, not because they are inferior people with unfit judgment. English is more useful to native and non-native speakers alike than many other languages. The English speaking people have been so prolific in the arts and sciences that if you can read English, pretty much all the world's knowledge that's worth knowing is available to you. And English speaking people have been so curious about other cultures that pretty much all the great literature of other languages is also available to you. Those things are not equally true of all languages. "As an ESL teacher, I can tell you that English is a nightmare for adults to learn." "A nightmare?" Maybe someone isn't doing it right. Foreign language learning can and should be fun, even for folks with no special talent for it. "Try being friendly, courteous, and kind instead." OK. Let charity begin at home.

And correlating this information with several other recent threads, the conspiracy theorist realizes... "Ah-hah! Now we're onto their little game... Uniforms from China... soon to be worn by gay atheist soccer coaches who did Wood Badge in Spanish and don't like camping (but are campy in their Chinese uniforms)."

A search finds a number of threads on the parent MBC issue. This one contains what may be the best response... the CalicoPenn post earlier in this thread is sound judgment stated with eloquent brevity. Having a parent MBC can be good time and resource management. A scout is thrifty - with gas, time, money, energy. He does not always organize a big logistical song and dance to accomplish something he can accomplish more economically. But most of the posts in this and other threads that raise the issue are against parental MBCing. Then again, folks are down on plenty of other venues for MBs too. Search this forum and you'll learn all about the turpitude of Eagle Mills, Summer Camp MB Mills, MB Univerisities, MB classes, and the like. So here's a review of the anti-MBC arguments from a contrary perspective: 1. Adult association: A quote from this forum from a poster making the adult assoc argument against parent MBCs: "That concept takes away from what the MB program has to offer the boy. It is not just about earning an MB, it is about going out into the world and working with another person that they do not even know (which is my preference when I give out names for MBC's to our Troop). The personal growth of the boy is all part of the experience and making that phone call, finding another boy to work on it with them and then going to meet different people with different ideas on how it should be done are a huge part of earning an MB as far as I am concerned..........I can't even fathom doing it any other way. How can you teach life skills and leadership if your son only sees you? It's mind boggling!" Don't let it boggle you, man. Don't assume that having a parent as an MBC means that "your son only sees you." Parents serious enough to serve as MBCs, are likely serious enough to ensure their sons develops these other skills as well. Another quote from this forum about adult association and parent MBCs: "Just make sure you are not circumventing the learning process of how to call complete strangers and ask for their time and help.. It is a great learning process that will help him as he matures and needs to do just that.." That is excellent advice. In addition to not circumventing it, let's not make a fetish of it either. Let's not add it to the requirements of every MB, and let's not assume that it isn't happening unless the SM has Helicopter-Scouted it. 2. Suspicion of cheating: A relevant quote from a post on a different forum: "but if the scout goes for Eagle and he sits before his Review Board with his merit badge cards (which his own parent has signed off the majority of)...it kind of raises some questions." Indeed. Ask those questions. Perhaps there are good answers. But why wait for the Eagle review board? There are reviews prior to that. These reviews should be events in which the scout learns to communicate and independently represent himself confidently. If there are anomalies (or perceptions thereof) in his record, should he not have answered for them in earlier? Maybe at his first and every subsequent review board? That's good adult association. If a parent helps the boy "earn" recognition the boy hasn't earned, both will know they've cut corners. Will some parents actually do that? Sure. But the same thing can happen with non-parent MBCs. We find in this forum whole threads on such problems as Summer Camp "MB Mills" complaints about "Eagle Mills," MB classes, Merit Badge Camps, offering the "wrong" MBs at camp, and MB focused troop meetings. So what do we do? Make policy based on the bad exceptions? Or do we conduct ourselves as adults concerned more with what we can control (our own integrity), that with what we can't control (other people's integrity)? Anyway, the biggest problem most parents serving as MBCs for their own sons will likely have is the polar opposite of cheating; it's that they'll have to take care to remember that they can't add requirements and that they must be willing to sign their son's card when he meets the MB standards even if he hasn't met the higher standards they'd prefer. 3. Overdoing it: Another critic asks: "whats to stop a person from being the primary counselor on all the merit badges he wanted to?" What's to stop it? Integrity. Or perhaps not wanting to counsel on MBs for which he knows he cannot teach or judge up to the standards required. Or maybe his son specifically wants a different counselor or has a special opportunity to work with another particular high quality adult role model. And if he is serving as the primary counselor on all the merit badges he wants to (whatever that number may be) and he's doing a competent job of it, ensuring the scouts meet all requirements, pointing them in the right direction when they are lost, or providing instruction and advice where appropriate, what's the problem? 4. Parent is not qualified: A relevant quote from the forum: "In over 30 years of experience and nearly 100 Eagle Scouts none had more than 3 done by a parent. I cannot imagine anyone other than DaVinci having talent enough in so diverse a field of skills as the MB selection to act as a counselor in so many areas." Well, some folks are more capable than others. By "Da Vinci," presumably the writer means Leonardo. The man was an autodidact. He had some mentors for some of his areas of expertise. But for much of what he did, he had no MBCs (maybe his parents signed off the requirements for him). Sure, some MBs clearly require counselors with very specific and special qualifications. But there are other merit badges that a dedicated scout could learn on his own from reading and doing and would only need a literate adult willing and able to verify that the scout has mastered the material up to the requisite standard. There are some MBs that are mostly studies (and some that even have "studies" in their names). Any literate person could pick up the MB pamphlet and start with that as a guide to finding other resources (library, online, local institute or organization involved in that area) and learn the material and do the projects beyond the standard required. Independent learning is a vital skill - although "independent" may be a misnomer as it's usually based on resources (books, pamphlets, videos, etc) that others have produced. 5. Offended Egalitarianism: another poster complains: "At almost every COH his kids haul in the badges." This is likely because his kids are earning those MBs by doing and learning the things required. Apparently either the MBs or the learning and doing that goes into them (or both) are a priority in their household. Maybe he'd be happy to MBC for others too. Would it be good judgment for the SM to forbid this because it's unfair to scouts who don't have MBCs as conveniently available to them because their parents either cannot or will not serve as MBCs for them? In the interest of egalitarianism should the SM forbid parental MB counseling and assign the scouts counselors who are less available to them, whose schedules are less flexible, who live across town? By this logic, if a scout has a small sailboat, would it be wise to forbid him from using it for the small boat sailing MB... in order to be fair to scouts who don't have sail boats? In addition to the standard requirements for the Small Boat Sailing MB, do we need to add an extra requirement for this scout to ensure he gains the experience of finding a sailboat to use and interacting with sailboats other than his own? And scouts who live near bodies of water must use more distant bodies of water when they earn the Canoeing MB so as to be fair to scouts who don't live near a body of water? 6. They're not doing it the way I do it: Relevant quote from the forum: "...home schools his kids.... teaches the merit badges at home as if they are "lesson's" ... we on occasion also used lessons that would include some merit badge requirements that related to the lesson at hand. But we kept it to a minimum." OK, you kept it to a minimum. He doesn't. Your behavior may be a wonderful example, but you aren't the only wonderful example and you aren't his example. Don't fret. You and your family set your homeschool curriculum and he and his family set his. For homeschool, as long he's within the applicable state law, what's the problem? For scouting, as long as he's not violating BSA policies and his sons are growing in the intended dimensions and really are learning and doing what's necessary to earn the MBs they are awarded, what's the problem? Nonconformity to what? 7. Limited Imagination: "I can't even imagine being my sons merit badge counselor!" Then don't. But don't expect the limits of your imagination to be the limits of what others do. 8. Mistaken Assumptions: Another quote about a parent MBC: "If he's homeschooling 10:1 a big reason for Scouting is to expose his son to other people and boy is he fouling that up... ...except in a 'Lone Wolf' situation or a lousy troop there is no call for it." It's a common misconception that homeschoolers are in danger of being deficient in "socialization." Just google "what about socialization?" and you'll learn that plenty of homeschoolers think it's a misinformed question. Plenty of homeschooled children experience more interaction with a more diverse set of people than many government schooled children do. We shouldn't assume that homeschooling parents see scouting as a venue where their children will make up for a deficiency in socialization. They may be thinking more about the ideals embodied in the Scout Law - or maybe the kid just likes camping and the outdoors. Or, as is commonly suspected maybe the parents are encouraging the kid to build his resume - as long as it's built honestly, there's nothing wrong with that. The boy's parent MBC may not be concerned (and maybe you shouldn't be either) about whether or not Counselor ABC, the exemplary adult who counsels many scouts on MB X, interacts with his son or not. If Counselor ABC's schedule doesn't line with the scouts' sched, or if Counselor ABC lives across town, and if the father can handle the material and/or the boy and his parent MBC can also enlist the aid of a knowledgeable relative, neighbor, friend, or professional... why make an issue of it? Life goes by fast. Why wait until counselor Y has time to meet with you about X, when you can learn and perform the MB requirements without that specific counselor?

"If you are in a dark alley, would you rather encounter an Eagle Scout who speaks Spanish, or a thug who speaks only English? Es preparado!" "Es preparado?" Hmmm... maybe "estar" works better then "ser" here... I think they say "siempre listo" anyway. But, if we go with "est preparado," we should ask this about the hypothetical Scout in that scenario: Est preparado para ser un ciudadano de qu pas? (is prepared to be a citizen of what country?) Because in the USA, "Be Prepared" ought to include being prepared to do it in English. If a Scout or Scouter is a US citizen and does not learn English well enough to use it in Scouting, while they may be a wonderful person and a good neighbor, they may not be as good a US citizen as they ought to be. The oath has us state: "I will do my best to do my duty to God and MY COUNTRY." To become a naturalized citizen of the USA, one must take a citizenship test that includes an English test. If BSA wants to help non-English speaking US citizens become better citizens, perhaps it should offer them English lessons rather than scouting lessons in Spanish. But apparently this particular course is not geared just to US citizens anyway - there are Scouters from Mexico coming according to the OP. Maybe BSA is going All-American. The "A" in BSA does stand for "America." And the countries in America include more than just the primarily English speaking places like the US and much of Canada. America also includes primarily Spanish speaking places ranging from Mexico down to Argentina, Portuguese in Brazil, and French in much of Canada and French Guyana (and more if you count the Islands around America). Interesting though... "Boy Scouts of America" is a much more inclusive name (including all of America) than the more parochial and exclusive sounding "Scouts de Mexico." Are we in the EE.UU. more xenophilic or are we yanqui imperialists?

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. -- H L Mencken

Regarding "worthy role models for boy scout-aged youth:" Most Republican voters aren't looking to government and officeholders as national daddy and mommy figures on whom they should rely. Ceteris paribus, they'd probably prefer the good role model. But that's not what they're voting for. They'll raise their own children, thank you. They don't need the Republican candidate to be a role model for them. They do need him to be effective at defeating Obama and pushing back the tide of collectivism. Whoever these "values voters" are, they aren't going to find a viable candidate who shares all their values. They must prioritize and choose.

Vivendi: Yes, quite a leap, beyond the leaps of the African antelope that sprung to Seattle Pioneer's mind. Not a leap any scouters we know would consciously make. But on missions to drain swamps, alligator distractions are common. It's good to occasionally remind that methods are not ends. And to lampoon helicopter scouter tendencies when they emerge. Seattle Pioneer: One guesses the antelope sprang 300 feet. "There are different varieties of Scouting out there. People are entitled to pick the program that appeals to them." That suits fine. Basic standards? Yes. Homogeneity? No.

When Helicopter Scouters denigrate "Eagle Mills" MBUs, paper Eagles, and Summer Camp MB classes, we understand they have a valid point.. Standards matter and MBs and ranks should signify something. But sometimes Helicopter Scouters sound so zealous in this area that it seems as if they think the primary purpose of Scouting is to protect the sanctity of the badges and ranks, most of all, the all important Eagle... "By God, it ain't right for these miscreants to sully the badge I earned by letting some scout earn it with less effort than I make MY Scouts put into it or than I put into it when I was a boy. In MY day and in MY troop we earned Citizenship in the Community uphill, in the snow, both ways! Why... just the other day I saw this obvious paper-Eagle, obviously and inferior type of person, that failed to impress me with whatever it was I figured any REAL Eagle Scout ought to have been doing at the moment I observed him!" They say it's parents who are obsessed with Eagle for their sons... but reading some comments, one wonders if perhaps there isn't a related obsession manifesting itself in projection. Helicopter Scouters hover over every aspect of THEIR (oops... we mean... the boys') program to ensure that the delicately developing scouts in THEIR (oops agian... the boys') troop don't have their growth stunted by allowing any influences not sufficiently subject to the Helicopter Scouter's control.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

It's heartening to read comments from Scouters who agree, even if for different reasons, that Scouts and Scouters should de-emphasize or drop many "playing Indian" activities and traditions. "Play Indian" at all, and you'll offend someone regardless of what pains you take not to. The eager to be offended will go far out of their way to experience the exquisite frisson of victimhood or preening self righteous indignation on behalf of supposed victims. So don't stop "playing Indian" because it offends. Stop it because it's absurd to mark high points in our lives with ritual and pageantry rooted in beliefs and culture the likes of which most of our ancestors quit millennia ago as they developed the better way of life we enjoy today. It's not some unintentional discourtesy or unkindness that's the problem. It's inappropriate reverence. Pre-Columbian North American cultures include useful examples of crafts and skills useful in survival, camping, and outdoorsmanship. It's interesting stuff and being historically informed is fine. But let's not make it a fetish. If we must "play Indian," make it fun, not serious ceremony. Cheerfully ignore calls to make pseudo-Indian pageantry reverent or authentic. Maybe as a courtesy, refrain from using any real tribe's name. Heck, you could, without even knowing it, be coming close to emulating your own ancestors... even if you are 100% Caucasian. That's because Native Americans aren't unique in having ancestors that... lived like Indians. We ALL have ancestors like that. Our way of life today differs from that of our distant ancestors because at many points throughout history they changed their ways as they discovered and invented better ways, or learned that some beliefs and practices were erroneous, harmful, or irrelevant, or they were conquered and assimilated into more advanced civilization. Native Americans don't own all primitive cultural territory just because their genetic ancestors lived that way more recently than other folks. Imagine a self professed "full-blooded" European Caucasian (or even a 1/10 blooded European Caucasian - claiming to be just white enough to feel he owns some share of the legacy) presuming to take on the role of cultural policeman to regulate the participation of non-Caucasians in Renaissance Fair type activities... imagine him warning Native Americans that they'd better not offend any European Caucasian sensibilities... that they'd better make sure any imitations of "white" custom is done in an authentic and respectful way. Or imagine him telling them on behalf of "his people" that Native American participation in Renaissance Fair activities was offensive to white people. Let's say he's a descendent of Leonardo Da Vinci... do we need his approval to costume ourselves as a Renaissance Italian from Vinci? Humbug. OK, no BillyBob da Vinci costumes then.

The Parable of the Wrong Fish might help him understand his mistake and that an un-coerced apology might be wise. An aquarist had in his aquarium a brightly colored fish he liked very much. A Pseudocheilinus hexataeniaudocheilinus, a sixline wrasse, it was. There are over 600 species in the Labridae (wrasse) family, so it was common for aquarists to have one among their collection. But it was taboo to publicly display any species from the wrasse family. An aquarist publicly displaying one would be shunned for reasons this aquarist chalked up to silly superstition. He was having none of it. "I'll not be held back by the crowd's silly taboos" he said, as he proudly posted pictures of the fish on his Facebook page. But soon all his aquarists colleagues shunned him and the impact on his life was not worth what small satisfaction he'd gotten from making those pictures public. He learned that facebook isn't the place to show your wrasse.

它的寒冷，在多米諾骨牌快樂的螃蟹蛋糕！ That'd be some tattoo!

Ouch. And that's without even trying to figure in externalities.

No tattoos here. I don't see them as necessarily being a terrible indictment of a person, but they can be a warning sign. Not all tattoos indicate some defect in character or judgment. Most of us probably know wonderful people who are tattooed. But the trend is there nevertheless; most modern western populations in which tattooing is rampant are and have been populations among which character and judgment deficiencies are also rampant. Much tattooing is an underclass phenomenon, but today we increasingly see tattooing among folks whose education, abilities, and circumstances place them among the cultural and cognitive elite. The tattoos of these would be sophisticates often display delusion and ignorance; see, for example, the adoption or adaptation of tattoo designs from primitive and/or foreign cultures about which the wearer knows little (or about which he thinks he knows much... but all his knowledge is of the romanticized, deodorized, sanitized, and disneyfied version common in popular notions of primitive societies.) Is this phenomenon the reverse image of the old cargo cult phenomenon? Also silly are tattoos in languages the wearer does not speak, read, or write; Chinese characters tattooed on a guy who can't understand a lick of Chinese, has never been to China, has never seriously studied China, and maybe has never even read a serious book about China. May the cancer stay beaten and may you enjoy many more years of happy life.

Systematic political agenda? What's wrong with being systematic about advocating for an agenda that is good, right, and beneficial? Harumphers should harumph specific systematic political agendas rather than issuing a blanket harumph in the general direction of all systematic political agendas. The United States of America was born through the efforts of systematic political agenda pushers.

Kudu, You observe: "So you prefer a corporate-speak mission statement to the BSA's statute-defined mission of Scoutcraft." Prefer corporate-speak? No. But it's the language they're speaking. It's what we've got. The fed is not going to step in to enforce the statue-defined mission... nor should we wish for federal involvement in such a thing. They say the road to Hades is paved with good intentions - and the fed sees paving it as a "shovel ready" project. "Congratulations. I see Wood Badge Course Director in your future." Now that's a cutting remark - and well played. I hope my future is brighter than your dark prognostication.

OK, the OP overstates the case where it reads "Everything thing else is honest differences of opinion......... Standards? Yes. Strict homogeneity? No thanks." Not "Everything" else is subject to honest differences of opinion or sound judgment. For example the Acco40 post above mentions uniforms. Altering the uniform or deciding not to use it sounds more like ignoring standards than it does using sound judgment within reasonable standards. A uniform is... well, uniform - right down to what insignia goes where on it. The guidelines are pretty specific and don't invite much judgment. But parameters of what constitutes Outdoor and Patrol method are less precisely defined than uniform guidelines and they do call for judgment - not carte-blanche to adapt these things to whatever one likes, but judgment within the guide lines - and that will lead to disagreements. --------------------- And on a different note related to disagreements... If we take "Car Camping Calvin" to be a reference to the Calvin of the comic strip as in the Shortridge post above... consider this: That particular Calvin has a frequent daydream of himself as Spaceman Spiff, traveling around exploring distant planets. He doesn't hike to the sites of these adventures; he uses a spaceship. It's not exactly the same thing, but spaceship camping seems fairly analogous to car camping. But we don't have to guess what that Calvin thinks of camping. We can consult the literature. My kids claim to own every collection of Calvin and Hobbes cartoons ever published (I haven't verified that - and since I don't think we need more Calvin and Hobbes books, I'm not eager to discover that another exists). So I am familiar with Calvin. He has car camped - and he has stated that in general he hates camping. Check this: http://members.shaw.ca/dlazechk01/mergedcamping12.html see page 21 in particular.

d-rat, "oath and law really come to life in those rugged outdoor moments, moreso than during indoor events" I think that's true in some cases but not all. It depends on the events and plenty of other factors. I do agree that "Outdoor adventure is what keeps the scouts coming back for more" - it's not ALWAYS the ONLY factor but it's probably always the primary factor.

I agree desertrat77, "Outdoor adventure is the BSA's time-honored winning formula." But I don't agree that "Everything else is just Powerpoint in the camp mess hall." Unless you mean by this that important things can be done even in settings as boring as "Powerpoint in the camp mess hall." Favorite scouting moments? Outdoor adventure, of course. Mine too. But my liking the favorite moments isn't relevant to the importance (or lack thereof) of moments that don't rate among my favorites. Ask any High School grad their favorite moments of high school and they won't tell you about essay writing, geometry, or algebra. Why do people mention scouting on resumes or college applications? Except in specific scouting and outdoor related contexts, it's not to signal that they really know their camping, hiking, canoeing, etc. It is to indicate their commitment to living the Scout Law and Oath, to signal that they have learned and practiced planning and organization, that they have set and achieved goals. I agree with you that "Outdoor adventure is the BSA's time-honored winning formula." But that formula is aimed at achieving results - not at making a fetish of the formula itself.