HICO_Eagle

BSA uniforms made in the US were cheaper than the new Centennial uniform so of course it's possible for them to go back to having decent affordable uniforms made in the US. They might have to give up the new baggy unkempt stuff but I don't see that as any great loss. In fact, today's economic environment will probably make it even easier to line up US suppliers and workers to fill a steady-work contract at a lower piece-price.

We've suffered losses in our manufacturing base but it's not completely gone and can in fact still be revived.

I'm sorry to hear about the staff cutbacks but glad the Goshen thing is dead. Goshen was a horrible idea for a jamboree site -- I didn't even like it as THE council campsite for NCAC as it was a horrendous drive for anyone east of the Beltway.

To be honest, I never liked FOS. I understood the need to fund council staff but high pressure sales pitches and Scouting just don't mix. Beyond that, I think the way FOS was conducted created more animosity and ill will than it helped.

I have always refused to watch any Roman Polanski film specifically because of his lack of remorse over his despicable actions. I haven't any use for Woody Allen either, guess I should look up this list of celebrities so I know what else I can avoid wasting money on (not that Hollywood has produced much worth spending money on in recent years).

Merlyn, 'fess up. You want Pope Benedict in prison because 1) he's the Pope (which goes against your pro-atheist agenda) and 2) he stands firm on the Catholic stance against active homosexuals, don't you?

92 --

Wow ... sounds like we could stand to have some Boy Scouting town hall meetings similar to the recent ones where citizens have been giving Congress a piece of their mind about Congress's priorities. I can afford this fancy schmancy new gear but not all my Scouts can. We have one family where both parents were recently laid off, a couple others that are going through hard times. National could hardly pick a worse time to be making the uniform and accoutrements more expensive (and made outside the country).

I've posted a lot of negative things about National's current direction in training, uniforms, program, etc. but I have to give a lot of kudos to them on the new handbook. There're still a lot of things I preferred in older editions (notably the 6th and 9th editions) but this is a HUGE improvement over the 11th edition. I have recommended it to all the Scouts in my troop.

I grew up with the OD uniform and the knee-high socks (with garters and red tabs!). Had to switch into the OdlR uniform before I made Eagle. At the time, I saw no reason to change from the old OD uniform but didn't have any problems with the OdlR. In fact, the OdlR shorts and pants seemed more practical.

Flash forward to 2009. I like the supplex shirts I've got from both REI and BSA. I wore them all summer as I camped and sailed but I detest the Centennial uniform shirts. They look horrible as uniform shirts (bellowed pockets were just stupid), switching the colors of troop numerals is yet another loss of Scouting heritage. If National wanted a Centennial uniform, I personally think they should have started with past uniforms and updated the cuts and design a little.

My major complaint is that the new uniform is impractical from a cost perspective. Everything is hugely expensive -- especially considering just how many uniforms a quickly growing Scout will go through.

My other pet peeve is that EVERYTHING in the new uniform is made in the PRC. The new belt is a nice utilitarian design. The convertible pants look pretty functional (although I prefer the design of my convertibles from other sources). But ... but ... they couldn't find suppliers in a democratic capitalist country? The new patches just look cheap. I guess I'll be springing to get some decent troop numeral patches made (in the US!) -- and probably US flags and other patches.

I would suggest my opinion counts for little because what the Scouts think is more important but count this adult as a strong NO on the Centennial uniform.

Were the patches made in China?

Mister __________

Eagle92,

No, I was talking about the now-superceded BSHB. I just got back from overseas this week and haven't had a chance to go get a copy of the new HB -- sorry, I wrote that post in the one day I had between trips and wasn't aware the new HB had finally been released. I hope the new one is indeed as good as you say as I'd just as soon scan and teach from the 9th or 10th editions than use the 11th.

"Maybe those 40% are not running a good program so if they go away, so will the poor programs. There are a lot of units to go around that run good programs. "

And maybe those 40% are running good programs servicing Scouts that would quit otherwise. There ARE a lot of units that run good programs -- not all of them subscribe to National's idea of training. Beyond that, just MAYBE, some of those 40% are running BETTER programs than half the troops that do take the check-the-box training.

These comments about taking IOLS anyway even though you already know all the material so you can help the others in the class are all well and fine but time is a precious and limited commodity. The main point is that IOLS should have an opt-out with a competency check because it is wholly redundant and useless for a large number of Scouters whose time might be better used by helping their units (or family or ...) rather than other adults.

The argument about two-deep leadership just illustrates the conflict behind the heart and soul of the PURPOSE of training the boys (giving them the ability to independently plan and conduct patrol activities) versus requirements that have been added due to the litigious evolution of our society. IMSNHO, the two deep leadership policy is needed more for legal beagles and to protect the Scouts from predatory adults than it is for training or even conducting safe activities.

Some of my favorite campouts as a Scout were ones where the adults dropped us off on Friday and picked us up again on Sunday.

I'd like to stay out of the Tahawk/Kudu fight here but in general I agree with Kudu. The content and quality of training has declined severely in the past 25 years although it has become glossier, more standardized and more "open". The current handbook is a travesty and should never have been published in its current form.

IMHO, Wood Badge should focus on what it used to: teaching and honing outdoor skills. Teaching leadership or management skills should have been the focus of another completely different course rather than appropriating the Wood Badge name (assuming Kudu's chronology is correct). For some reason, I seem to remember that's what JLT was supposed to be for ...

One additional point (mainly since I mistakenly double posted): 18 year olds are only NOT considered adults because society has recently gotten warped into a nanny state. I keep harping on this with my Scouts who think they are somehow limited in responsibility or capability because they're "not adults" -- boys of 18, 16, even 13 were frequently the primary breadwinners or held positions of authority in times past.

An 18 year old is an adult, he needs to act like an adult and be treated like an adult. He can vote, he can get a driver's license without parental permission, etc. They can also be an ASM -- I don't see what the issue is about having secondary criteria of 21 for full SM, we have different age criteria required for being a member of Congress, Vice-President and President.(This message has been edited by HICO_Eagle)

1. No

2. Yes, 1984.

My COH was held after my 18th birthday so I never got to wear my badge. I nonetheless wear the knot and occasionally the belt buckle and/or neckerchief (the latter usually only on special occasions). I would like to point out that you can wear the belt buckle and other accoutrements out of uniform as well as in uniform.

Our scouts all know what the knot means. I explain the knots to adults and new scouts when they visit. The Eagle and AOL knots are the only ones I put on my uniform shirt -- my Scouts, my troop committee, everyone I deal with in Scouting can determine my quality as a Scouter by my actions rather than what's on my uniform.(This message has been edited by HICO_Eagle)

Sure looks like you hit a nerve with your question but I can understand why. Our troop doesn't absolutely forbid cell phones like yours does but I understand why your SM has his policy and support it. You've basically got two and a half choices when any parental policy contradicts the troop policy:

1. Stick with the troop and live with its policies.

2. Find another troop whose policies you can live with.

2.5 Bring the topic up in committee but be prepared to resort to one of the two choices above.

I have a serious problem with a scout leader setting rules that contradict my rules as a parent.

and I have a serious problem with a parent that thinks his or her rules are so special they should overrule reasonable standard troop rules -- especially a father who is apparently an Eagle Scout and should know better. You should have known you have free will and therefore it would devolve to choices 1 or 2 instead of coming to a bulletin board to seek vindication.

Well it is indeed a good thing that a couple of the out of touch right wing posters here are no longer active scouters but only come here to berate other opinions.

Hmm... let's see, I've seen OGE, Beavah and Stosh actively participate in other forums in providing help and advice to newbie Scouters. They still seem pretty active in Scouting itself whereas I don't recall you demonstrating that. All three of them talked about the issue whereas you berated other posters with ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

I get it! You're looking at a mirror and therefore mistaking your left wing extremism for right wing!

... what's the purpose of the bellowed pockets? ... I've yet to see a boy scout stuff one of these pockets full.

Boys will be boys which means many Scouts will try to stuff them full. The first time I saw the bellowed pockets I wanted to see what kind of testing they'd done because I predict boys will be pulling those seams out as soon as they figure out they can put a pocketknife, their flashlight, compass, whistle, etc. all in the same pocket.

I think National was trying to copy some popular supplex shirt designs used by REI and many other manufacturers.

Why can't there be a mix of things? Parents should be educated to understand some elements of training are best done in a single-sex environment with minimal distractions but there's no reason some of the campouts and activities can't be opened to be family events. The main thing I ask is that parent attend any mixed-sex activities because chaperoning a bunch of teenage boys (and only boys) can be tiring enough as it is without introducing hormones into the equation.

Letting the boys demonstrate their skills in the real environment outdoors may actually be an incentive for them to really learn their skills. Parent attendance may also show that Mister Scoutmaster isn't really a mean old codger who has it out for Little Johnny but rather that Little Johnny likes to shirk his duties and play around.

Adapting to changing circumstances shouldn't have to mean abandoning our core principles as some posters are wont to do but flexibility is certainly important to meeting the changing sociographics. I don't really like the idea that Scouting has never really gained traction outside a white suburban/rural base. That implies Scouting didn't try or failed to reach beyond that base. Some of the most impressive troops I've seen were inner city troops from Washington, DC with nary a white face among them -- in fact, I used to point them out to my upper middle-class largely white Scouts who were complaining about the cost of uniforms, maintaining discipline, etc.

I think what has been going on were active attacks against anything smacking of traditional values. It has been fashionable amongst the self-styled intelligentsia and artistes to denigrate and downplay Norman Rockwell's America and they have propagandized inner city minority populations to splinter them from the mainstream. What Scouting needs to do is go on the offensive to recruit and show how fallacious the picture painted by the media elite is. Inner city and lower income kids deserve to experience Scouting and the training it offers as much as anyone else and we should help them see that.

Wow. I'm torn on this. John-in-KC is right that the CA and LA should have moved earlier to get the DC into the Lodge to prevent this kind of situation. On the other hand, the way OldSouthScouter described it, I'm not sure I would want that guy as my DC. As DC, he should know enough about not just the rules but the rationale and traditions to be aware he had the right to attend but shouldn't until it was appropriate. Sounds to me like someone on a huge power trip over being the DC and that's definitely not the kind of people we want on Council staff.

I'm going to amend that.

NATIONAL MAKE IT UNIFORM AND GO BACK TO THE TRIED-AND-TRUE TRADITIONAL WHITE ON RED.

I'm not wearing that green on tan garbage even if I have to commission new troop number strips from a patchmaker.

I'm sorry but the school would only be discriminatory if they refused to also charter competing groups or if they contributed material funds. I don't think use of a classroom or the lunch room or the occasional trips to the bathroom count in that. Although as a taxpayer I think I would draw the line at overtime pay for the janitor to keep the room or facility open specifically for that troop/pack to meet. My university sponsored a Black Student League that refused to allow white students to join -- even a Jewish student whose parents had marched alongside King et al in Selma.

As I said, your logic would have forced our Wargaming Club to admit and service bridge and badminton players and who knows what else.

Why don't you set up a Gay and Atheist Youth club to service to their needs? If/when the school refuses their charter simply on the basis of name or core values, then let's talk.

I think a quote from Fiddler on the Roof is apt when considering the almost maniacal attacks on BSA from various communities:

Villager: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth!

Tevye: Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.

Beavah, I consider you yourself to be bigoted because you continue to say that public schools ought to be able to discriminate against atheists by chartering BSA units that exclude atheists.

Great and I consider you ignorant or logically deficient since you can't seem to understand that enabling a youth group to meet in no way discriminates against atheists/Christians/poets/etc. who are free to create their own group and seek a meeting place and time of their own.

When I was in high school a group of friends and I created a Wargaming club. We got a teacher sponsor and were allowed to use a classroom in a non-interference manner to play D&D, Risk, etc. Were we discriminatory because our club didn't cater to those who wanted to play Bridge or Badminton (of course there was already a separate Chess Club)? Your trail of illogic would lead to that exact interpretation.

I am Walmart. I'm the biggest pharmacy chain in the nation. In order to get that big, I agree to take government funds in the form of Medicare/Medicaid and with my massive purchasing power, I can get drugs to consumers at a discount. Part of that agreement is to not restrict access to anything prescribed by doctors to customers.

REALLY bad analogy. Walmart sells things, in your scenario, prescription drugs. Their customers want to use a check from the government to pay for their prescriptions. Walmart is not receiving government funds the way universities get financial aid and research dollars. In fact, by agreeing to take a government check for those drugs, they are providing the taxpayer with a benefit by enabling access to the same drugs at a lower cost due to their buying power and distribution network.

Walmart is hardly a monopoly, the consumer has plenty of choices in places to get their drugs, condoms, etc. but some groups want to force THEIR values on the free marketplace provider by forcing him or her to be an accessory. It's funny but most of these same groups want to protect US universities that try to bar military or intelligence community recruiters despite the massive amounts of federal funds (some of it actually grants rather than payment for services rendered) they receive.

You're absolutely right. I think what I enjoy most isn't coming across the boys I helped get to Eagle but rather the boys that say, "Hey, Mr. XXXXXX! Nice to see you! You know, my boy is in Cubs/Boys Scouts now and I'm trying to do for him what you did for me." Not all of them are Eagles either but they ARE men who got some measure of their evolution to manhood from their time in Scouting.

Daddy_O, for what it's worth, it sounds like your family needs to move ON to Boy Scouts, not back to Webelos. Your son sounds ready. Your wife should know that she doesn't have to be involved in it every week like she would be in Webelos. Heck, I'm happy as punch if a parent from every family is involved quarterly (beyond the Courts of Honor). Your boy is growing up, he doesn't need diapers or apron strings now.

As Beavah said, your son will have to deal with people he doesn't like more and more as he grows up. The patrolmate he despises is good training. I had one of those during my first year in Scouts, I lasted, he didn't.

First year summer camp is a great way for your son to transition and build independence. If he waits a year, he'll find himself behind his classmates (I took almost 2 years off from Scouting and it was a bit of a pain). What I would suggest is that he continue with Boy Scouts but don't worry about missing some meetings or activities so he can also do baseball. Scouting is not supposed to be a singular focus or obsession -- but don't overlook its role in the larger picture.