Strange things re Scouting

[Penta]

Huh, much more achievable.

[Woapalanne]

Where did you get the idea that conservatives would be against anything international?? I'm as conservative as it gets. I travel internationally extensively, and as a ham op, talk to people from literally hundreds of countries. I have HUGE respect for other cultures, peoples, religions and customs. That's WHY I'm so conservative politically. I believe people need to be free to practice their own cultures, religions, etc.

[Kudu]

Presumably you are not conservative enough to recognize that European countries such as England and Germany maintain free markets in which their citizens may form competing Scouting associations, while our Congress favors one corporation with an absolute monopoly on Scouting for all American Citizens.

 

WOSM is just an international cartel of anti-free market Scouting monopolies.

 

Just sayin'

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[Nike]

Most of the German Scout and Guide Associations here in Germany and elsewhere in Europe were founded to serve specifically Catholic or Protestant youth. There's usually a non-denominational association too. By enabling churches to sponsor units and limit the units participation to thier own sect, it seems the US organization found a way around that issue, for good or ill.

 

These days, all the Scouting Associations in most European countries have federated and belong to WOSM and WAGGGS at that level. I'm pretty sure the Federation level organization is what the national governments here use as a conduit for funds down to the still separate youth orgs.

 

We do have Camp Freedom every summer, currently in Ansbach. And Kandersteg is the WOSM center that most Scouts here visit. Many American troops also participate in Inter-Camp, a yearly pan-European camporee.

 

And, Scouting won't teach your child a foreign language, but it will recognize his achievements in one. Most third or fourth year language students should be able to pass the testing.

[Woapalanne]

Actually, Kudu, I'm conservative enough to feel that each country (or state, a synonym) should have the right to define its institutions in whatever way that best fits their peoples and cultures. As long as the people come first.

[Kahuna]

"there any sort of research archives, either for the BSA"

 

As has been pointed out, there are archives at Irving and Philmont. However, they won't let you into the ones at Irving and the people there cannot find anything you ask about. At Philmont you can go in and do your own research. I found a lot of material there.

[Kudu]

Woapalanne writes:

 

Actually, Kudu, I'm conservative enough to feel that each country (or state, a synonym) should have the right to define its institutions in whatever way that best fits their peoples and cultures. As long as the people come first.

 

So to answer Penta's question: Congress should grant McDonald's a monopoly Charter on the term "Hamburger" (and "burger" and "fast food," all synonyms) because the "Golden Arches" best represent our peoples and cultures.

 

They do serve the best fries, after all, and the people come first!

 

Anyone who attends McDonald's training will tell you that broiled burgers are against the rules and therefore (by definition) "old-fashioned."

 

Yours in the Nanny State,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net/

[Woapalanne]

Nope. McDonald's is a private business and not chartered. Now, if they were the FIRST to come up with a "hamburger", they could register that as a trademark, once they traded in interstate commerce. Since they did not, and have never had a "hamburger" that was even above average, they are clearly not eligible for ANY governmental protection of the name. The city would be the one eligible for that claim, imo.

 

(And THIS people disagrees that theirs are the best fries. They are good, not the best.)(This message has been edited by Woapalanne)

[Oak Tree]

Seems to me the debate is really over what the other groups can call themselves. There is no doubt that other groups can spring up and offer outdoor adventure and mimic most all aspects of the Boy Scout program (or whichever aspects they want to.) See Royal Rangers, for example.

 

I think a good analogy would be whether you are allowed to sell ping-pong tables. You can sell the tables, you can make up your own rules or use existing ones, but can you call it "Ping Pong"?

 

Feels to me more like a trademark issue than a monopoly issue. The trademark issue could exist entirely apart from Congressional charter. See xerox, kleenex, frigidaire, coke, aspirin, cellophane, escalator, kerosene, laundromat, netbook, thermos, yo-yo, zipper.

[SSScout]

 

Bandaid, Nylon, Plexiglas, Rayon, Walkman, Saran...

[Kudu]

Woapalanne writes:

 

Nope. McDonald's is a private business and not chartered.

 

We went all the way to the Supreme Court to establish that our corporation is a private business.

 

Woapalanne writes:

 

Now, if they were the FIRST to come up with a "hamburger", they could register that as a trademark,

 

That was the point of the Congressional Charter: The BSA needed what we call "Special Rights," because it was not the FIRST to come up with American "Scouting" and therefore could not register the already generic term as a normal trademark.

 

Baden-Powell himself could not register "Scouting" as a trademark because the term "Boy Scouts" had already been coined by popular pulp fiction writers in reference to his military book Aids to Scouting. That is why, unlike the United States, England allows a free market in which its citizens can choose from three (3) competing Scouting associations.

 

The trademark issue has already been discussed in depth:

 

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=175541&p=1

 

(Note however that the referenced material on youthscouts.org is no longer there because a Left Coast San Francisco judge ruled in favor of the BSA, citing the Congressional Charter. The URL was then snatched up by someone else.)

 

Penta writes:

 

Scouting's main constituency in the US is what? Fairly conservative types, among parents and adults, no?

 

and

 

About that Charter - Yeah...Other than the Report to the Nation PR thing every year, what impact does it have?

 

It seems to me that the new issue in this thread is the juxtaposition of those two questions.

 

Neo-conservatives seem to believe that the Nanny State is a good thing because our government-imposed monopoly corporation has membership policies appropriate to Scouting. If we allowed a free market (as in most of the world), then competing Scouting associations would spring up with the same membership policies found (as far as I know) in every country in the Western World (Baden-Powell's former British Empire at least). So neo-conservatives tend to deflect this issue by moving the discussion to other topics.

 

It seems to me that the issue of Nanny State vs. Unregulated Free Market in Scouting should not be so clear-cut for libertarians and old school conservatives (Goldwater Republicans: They call us RINOs now).

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net/

 

[sherminator505]

"Scouting's main constituency in the US is what? Fairly conservative types, among parents and adults, no?"

 

NO!

[Woapalanne]

"Scouting's main constituency in the US is what? Fairly conservative types, among parents and adults, no?"

 

Most assuredly YES.

[sherminator505]

You haven't driven us out yet, Woapalanne. Don't kid yourself.

[Woapalanne]

Interesting comment. I have never tried to drive anyone out. I kid nobody, most especially not myself. The fact remains, Scouting's main constituency in the US is fairly conservative types, among parents and adults.(This message has been edited by Woapalanne)