DadNow_EagleThen

The problem with cubs and temporary patches is not that they aren't allowed; it's that the "progress toward rank" plastic attachment -- or the equivalent for Tigers -- hangs from the right pocket button and obscures any temporary patch you sew on the pocket. I spent an evening sewing my Tiger's first patch to his shirt (yes, I'm a slow seamstress - er, seamster) and then realized that you can't see the thing anyway. MF

Vicki Wrote: "Prairie Scouter wrote >Do you think it's possible to separate the actions of BSA's national office from the local Scouting units? > I don't think it is possible. The local Scouting unit, while chartered to a CO, gets its identity from the National organization - hence the ability to use the name "Boy Scouts of America" and all the associated materials instead of being "Boys Associated with ABC Church." As National goes, so do we. Can't have it both ways." Actually, it is possible to separate the actions of BSA's national office from the local units, and it happens all the time. Maybe not officially. Maybe not in the red-state heartland. But on the blue-state coasts, where majorities of the population are slowly approving gay marriage and civil unions, and where belief in God is rarely talked about outside of church or synagogue, local packs and troops basically ignore the national program's pressure to expel homosexuals and atheists. As both the volunteer and professional leaders told me when I asked these questions before introducing my son to Tigers, "it just doesn't come up." Many posts in this thread have taken the tone of "I'm glad the BSA is behind the times - those were better times." Maybe, but large parts of the country must therefore be considered "ahead of the times" and they are doing the best they can to expose boys to the parts of scouting which all can enjoy and appreciate -- camping, citizenship, leadership, do a good turn. We just do our best to ignore what most of us view as distasteful intolerance. You may not like it; you may think it's inconsistent with BSA policies. But the boys thrive nonetheless. And it happens all the time. MF

The bigger problem with the Army's flag patch is that they specified that it should go below the "combat patch" -- the unit patch a soldier who has been in combat wears on his right shoulder for the rest of his career; his current unit patch is on his left shoulder. By putting the full color flag below the subdued combat patch, the appearance of a row of soldiers standing in formation is uneven -- some flags are high (soldier who was never assigned to a unit in combat) and some are low. Moreover, this regulation puts the flag below another patch, which is probably a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the flag code. Most soldiers I know are waiting for a revised instruction to come out at which point they'll re-sew two patches... MF

Warning: long post ahead. It's time for a reformation. Someone should nail some theses to the door of the BSA Headquarters (...he typed in full ironic mode). Here's the first page: We need a new Boy Scout program that is free of the baggage of homophobia and insistence on belief in God. There are wonderful aspects to the Boy Scout and Cub Scout programs -- encouraging love and respect for the wilderness, developing a sense of citizenship in boys as they grow into young men, teaching skills to protect boys in a world that is often dangerous. I believe that these are the things that draw boys and their parents into Scouting, and I know from my own experience as a scout and a father that this is the Scouting I see on a regular basis. But there are exclusionist, rejectionist, intolerant aspects to the BSA as well -- themes which I never saw as a boy, and which I still don't see in my son's Pack, but which have become all too evident in national Scouting today. Dismissal and rejection of homosexuals. An unyielding demand that all involved in Scouting subscribe to a theology that acknowledges a supreme being. I agree the the BSA is a private club, and as such it can follow whatever policies it likes. But here's the catch: the BSA has always sought to embody and exemplify American values. What the BSA's leaders fail to recognize is that the values they are pushing today are unAmerican. I've often thought that the BSA is doing itself a disservice by trying to have it both ways: on the one hand, it aspires to be a truly national institution that upholds the highest standards of moral virtue and exerts positive influence over the hearts and minds of American boys. But as soon as it becomes clear that such an exalted position brings with it a set of responsibilities that clash with the BSA's self-image (i.e., nondiscrimination, taking a public flogging for having a child pornographer in a senior position) the institution reverts to "hey, we're just a private club, and you have no business rendering an opinion on our private matters." You can't have it both ways. Personally, I prefer the public status -- if you're going to cloak yourself in red, white and blue, and if you're going to require your boys to learn and practice good citizenship, then you should accept the obligation to uphold the national values embodied in the Constitution: tolerance, respect for differing views, acceptance of different religions or the lack thereof. Thus my opening line: it's time for a Boy Scout program that is truly American -- one which preaches what many local organizations practice: sexuality has no place in Scouting, hetero, homo or otherwise, so as long as you live by that rule, who cares if you're homosexual? One which accepts atheists and agnostics because they can make tremendous contributions to Scouting's core missions: teaching boys about the wilderness, citizenship, and child safety. That is a Boy Scout program I would be proud to join. Okay, now to disarm the inevitable responses: yes, I know the U.S. military is homophobic. I'm an officer in the Naval Reserve; I know the military's policies well. But "don't ask, don't tell" is on the losing side of history because it is unAmerican and wrong. In another ten years, fifteen maybe, that policy will be thrown on the ash-heap of history. And I know it seems inconsistent to join the military and to join Scouting when they discriminate. But the U.S. military will always have a monopoly on the defense of the nation (and rightly so). If you want to serve and defend the Constitution, you have only one military to join, despite its flaws. I'm comfortable with the choice I made. The same applies to Scouting, for now -- I looked for a viable alternative for my boys, but such an alternative just doesn't exist. It should. And yes, I grew up and now live in the Northeast. I'm sure that my Scouting experience (in which none of this nonsense ever comes up) is not the same as that of a "red state" Scout. But American values are the same nationwide. Discrimination against homosexuals and atheists aren't among them. MF

Bob is right to correct me on the charge: it was of course child pornography, not pedophilia. Sloppy on my part, and what I get for typing late at night. I still wouldn't want the guy anywhere near my children. But I stand by the rest of my post. Senior employees of Scouting are leaders in the general, and truest sense of the term. Their actions reflect on the program as a whole. To split hairs and redefine them as "mere" employees is evading the issue. Thanks, MF

"It's the hypocrisy, stupid." Seven pages of posts, and I'm surprised no one has made this point yet. I'm a new member of the forum, but it seems as though many of you have argued with each other about so much for so long that any new topic just leads you to fall into old patterns of hostility. The problem with Mr. Smith -- the vulnerability of the BSA as a whole -- is the hypocrisy. The controversies which have surrounded the Boy Scouts for the last few years have led the BSA to hold itself up as a paragon of moral virtue, despite the many people in this country who see the BSA's stance as immoral (yes, I'm talking about the homosexuality policy, and no, I'm not going off topic). The BSA has antagonized its critics by continually claiming the moral high ground. No wonder the critics bare their fangs when they smell hypocritical blood in the water. The head of the BSA's Youth Protection program pleads guilty to pedophilia? Even though the BSA appears to have acted quickly and properly to remove him from his position, the organization's reputation depends on the actions of its leaders. Enron is a synonym for corporate greed and excess because of its CEO, not the thousands of hard workers who were laid off as it collapsed. The BSA will take a beating in the weeks to come because the man it entrusted with the protection of its young members was preying on children. That's the way public opinion works. My oldest son is a Tiger Cub this year, and this is my first exposure to scouting since my own time as an Eagle Scout years ago. I was surprised and delighted to see the extensive materials on child protection which have been incorporated into the program -- I recall nothing like it from my own childhood, and I think it's a genuine improvement. Scouting seeks to inculcate moral values in boys -- in so doing, it puts itself on a pedestal. But the organization is made up of individual leaders, who must conduct themselves in a way that deserves a place on the pedestal. Like it or not, when a senior leader falls so spectacularly, the organization needs to re-earn its credibility in the public eye. MF

My Tiger just received his diamond Tiger badge at this morning's Blue and Gold (since when did it become breakfast, rather than dinner?). He's very proud of it, so now we have to put it on his uniform. But it still has the peel-off paper covering a sticky back, which I assume is a holdover from the previous Tiger program where you stuck the patch on a belt device, rather than on the blue shirt. I've used GooGone before, so I guess I could stick it to his shirt and sew it down for good measure. But I'd rather not. Does anyone have any suggestions? Should I sew it down with the paper backing still in place? Should I stick it to some very light fabric cut-to-size, and then sew it down? Anything I'm not thinking of? Separate question - has anyone successfully taught a Tiger-aged boy to sew his own patches? Thanks, Mike

Keynesian economic theory is about macroeconomics; it's not really relevant here. The behavior of firms is microeconomics. Not to belabor the point, but FScouter is right. To put it another way, companies try to maximize profits, not simply raise them. "Maximize" doesn't mean they go up; it often means they go down. I spent the last 12 years in IT, and I can assure you that profits can go down, even when you try real hard to make them as high as possible. Same thing for the textile industry. Moving all production offshore may be necessary just to keep profits level and keep the stock price from falling; it's not necessarily a way for the rich capitalists to get richer, it might be the only way they can keep their jobs. Not to say that they deserve more sympathy than the laid-off factory workers. But now we're heading off topic... MF