Hunt

"But if they had to face the same program I did, I honestly believe 4, maybe 5, would have not met both the swimming and lifesaving requirement." Is that because of their conditioning, or their basic physiology? I guess I'm really asking whether your objection is that the current requirements don't force boys to learn essential lifesaving skills, or that the current requirements don't weed out weak specimens. (I tend to agree with you that it's troubling to think of an Eagle Scout who wouldn't be able to rescue a drowning person--but I think any boy in the normal range of physical condition should be able to learn to do this.)

Have a new patch made that recognizes your achievement, but that is NOT the official lifeguard emblem. Get it approved as temporary insignia by your local Scout Executive, and wear it on your right pocket. (Anybody have a name for somebody who comes up with a convolutedly legal way to do what you wanted to do anyway?) For the record, even as a middle-of-the-roader, I wouldn't wear the Lifeguard patch on the field uniform, because the Insignia Guide makes it pretty clear that this isn't approved. Does anybody know why this is?

"I'm betting that parents are paying more attention to their sons' advancement nowadays." I think this is probably true, at least in the suburban achievement-oriented atmosphere where I live--kids must not only be in activities, but must excel in them--so not just soccer, but travel soccer--not just piano lessons, but piano competitions, etc. I also think that the real barriers to making Eagle are not now, and probably were not in the past, the amount of work that had to be done. The barriers have more to do with teen-age attitude. If a boy wants to be an Eagle, it's not all that hard--heck, we've discussed numerous situations in which adults wanted to hold a boy back from earning Eagle "too soon." On the other hand, if a boy doesn't really want it, it can be very, very difficult. He may still get there, if his parents want it bad enough--and maybe more parents want it now, as you suggest.

I'd also like to point out that this statistic (percentage of joiners who go on to make Eagle)doesn't really say anything about how "hard" it is to make Eagle--it really has more to do with retention. I mean, I dropped out at Second Class after about a year--that says nothing at all about how hard it is to make Eagle. If you really wanted to compare apples to apples, I think you should ask what percentage of boys who are registered Boy Scouts at age 18 are Eagles. I'll bet you that would be a pretty high number (and it may even be a bit low, because it would exclude boys who get Eagle at a younger age and then drop out before 18). And furthermore, even that statistic doesn't necessarily tell you whether it's "easier" to make Eagle today, even if a larger percentage of 18-year-old Scouts are Eagles than in prior years. It might also mean that there are fewer "casual" scouts, and that boys who stay in until 18 are more focused on scouting than boys in the past, who may not have had as many alternative activities.

"Nephew's SM wears the full uniform and expects the boys to be in their full uniform (yes, including socks and belt) at every meeting and asks them why they aren't...."you had to put on pants anyway, so why not your uniform pants?" type thing. Nephew wears his full uniform to nearly all of meetings....well, to all of them now. The one time he didn't change and put on scout socks they had an inspection and that was the only thing wrong w/ his uniform. He has changed clothes in the car on several occassions to make sure he is in the right clothes." Does your Nephew wear the uniform because he wants to or because he is afraid of being embarassed by the SM? (The SM's questions may be friendly ones--I'm just asking.)

"The problem I see is some adults will see a boy throwing on a uniform shirt on the way to a meeting, after a sports game or practice, and encourage that as an attempt to be in uniform. I totally disagree - I would rather they just attend the meeting in their sports clothes than wear half the uniform. I think wearing just the shirt looks bad, and sends the wrong message. Next thing you know, half the Troop or Pack is wearing only the shirt, even though they didn't just arrive from a game or practice." I agree with you on this--if you can put the shirt in a sack and change into it, why not the pants? It only takes seconds. I'll steal your analogy, and ask if the football practice was after the Scout meeting, do you think they'd have trouble getting the full football uniform on?

Perhaps our views on this are partly shaped by both geographical and chronological context. For example, in my semi-rural hometown in the 1960's and 70's, I don't think this "pipe bomb" would have been considered all that big a deal if the boys were blowing up cans on the back 40 with it. It might have been considered a stupid, but not particularly criminal thing to do (although it was probably against the law even then). Heck, back then you could still get fireworks that were virtually bombs. In a more urban context, and in today's context of terrorism concern (bordering on hysteria), we have a stronger need for boys to know that this kind of activity is totally unacceptable. (I would just note that depending on where you live, people may also have the same attitude of horror with respect to firearms.)

"The young man was advised by his lawyer to not talk about it." This is very tough. I think I would have to tell the candidate that he should return when he is able to talk about it. What would you do if he denied guilt to the Board, and the records are sealed? I guess you'd have to take his word for it and vote yes.

"I guess it depends on how you feel about Scouting. Do you treat it as you would a rec league where kids are just playing for fun, or do you treat it as one of the most important programs your son will ever participate in? Is Scouting something you just do one night a week, or is it a way of life for you and your son? Does the rec league have a rich history, with many notable players wearing the uniform in the past? Would wearing the wrong shorts be seen as disrespectful to those who have worn the uniform previously? I doubt it, but the same doesn't hold for Scouting." You raise some good points, Brent, and they go to why a boy would want to wear the complete uniform--a goal I support. But when the sports analogy comes up, it usually--as it did this time--ends with "Would they get to play?" If they don't get to play, it's because the adults are enforcing the rule. I just think that's the wrong approach to encouraging full uniforming in Scouting--really, the point I made in the first post in this thread back in July--indeed, I even mentioned your last point, that Scouts should wear the uniform out of respect for others. Wouldn't you rather have your troop fully uniformed because the boys think it's important, rather than because they know Mr. SM won't let them play if they aren't?

Isn't it interesting how uniform issues draw some of the strongest feelings this side of political issues? One the question of what makes somebody a Uniform Libertine: One man's tweak is another man's poison. But I do have some thoughts about this. You're probably a Uniform Libertine if you have found yourself saying things like, "I don't care what anybody thinks, I'm going to..." or "I know this will drive certain people crazy, but..." You are most definitely a Libertine if you tweak your uniform in order to drive somebody crazy. I don't know exactly where I would draw the line...I tend to think that deliberately wrong insignia is in Libertine territory, while a certain casualness about some uniform parts (i.e., socks and belts) is worthy of less condemnation.

"I like to ask what would happen if their son showed up to a baseball, basketball, soccer or football game wearing only their uniform shirt. Would they get to play?" The answer is yes, at least in rec league baseball and soccer--as long as the pants were close enough to serve the purpose. In rec baseball, all the boys were issued baseball pants, but some showed up in their own...no problem. No shorts allowed though. In rec soccer, all the girls on my daughter's team were issued uniform shorts. Some show up in different shorts of the same (or similar) color. No problem. The situation was different on a travel soccer team. So is Scouts more like a rec league where the kids play for fun and nobody raises a fuss if the soccer shorts don't have a stripe down the side, or more like a travel or school team where those kinds of rules are strictly enforced by adults? Or is the analogy just not all that helpful?

"How about the uniform-hater that takes every opportunity to poke at those who wear and respect the uniform and uniform method, and goes so far as to start a thread seemingly for the sole purpose of soliciting disparaging remarks." I'm not a uniform-hater--in fact, I like it pretty well (especially now with the new pants). But I do dislike the attitude about it I see from both ends of the spectrum. If you think this thread was designed to solicit disparaging remarks about the uniform, you didn't read the first post carefully. When it comes to the uniform, I believe in not sweating the small stuff--but one extreme of the spectrum seems to think there is no small stuff, and the other extreme thinks everything is small stuff.

"And then, of course, there is the Uniform Elite. Those scouts and scouters that always where a complete, correct and well pressed uniform. Preferring, of course, the poly/wool blend." Don't forget the Uniform Exhibitionist, who is festooned with ribbons, lanyards, beads, knots, patches, badges, medals, special neckers, hand-carved slides, etc. This person's opposite number is the Uniform Minimalist--somebody else will have to tell you that he has the Silver Beaver, etc.

It's interesting to think what the United States might be like if the federal government had been more limited...I guess it could have been what Europe was like about 10 years ago. Of course, the EU is centralizing more and more, and Europe is getting more like the US all the time.

"I guess the bottom line is, if there are rules or a basis that defines an organisation, then, either practice a bit of tolerence or abstain from being associated with the organisation." I think you put your finger on something that makes this discussion so difficult: determining whether something "defines" an organization, or is tangential. I think at one extreme, we would all recognize that you shouldn't join the Elvis Presley Fan Club if you don't like Elvis Presley. On the other hand, I don't think anybody would think it unreasonable if a member of the Fan Club suggested that meetings should be held on Tuesdays rather than Wednesdays. BSA's religion requirement is hard to place on this continuum. On the one hand, BSA says its vitally important, and its mentioned in the Oath and Law. On the other hand, the requirement is extremenly general (and non-sectarian) and is mostly invisible as the program is actually delivered to most boys. An outside observer of what Scouts are up to will hardly ever see it--what they see is boys camping, hiking, doing projects, etc. Its not surprising that many people would come to think that it's not really a defining element of Scouting, but is a tangential element that might be negotiable.

There was an ad for Animal Planet at the bottom of the page--could that be a reaction to llama related discussions? Or was it there before?

I have a fun idea--let's all mention some inane topic and see what it takes to cause an ad to pop up! For example... I think llama raising would be an excellent choice for a new Merit Badge. Yes, llama raising, or llama husbandry. What do you think about llama raising?

"The argument that the Supreme Court alone is reponsible for the interpretation of the Constitution does not fit historical reality. Back in the day, Kentucky and Virginia used their authority as signatories to the Constitution to declare the Alien and Sedition Acts void as did South Carolina with several federal tariffs. Jackson asserted the Supreme Court was in error when he unilaterlly continued Indian Removal in defiance of it." And how did that ultimately work out for South Carolina? Yes, your argument has been made over the years, but the ship has sailed. You may not like the state of the law now, but it is what it is. Besides, I never said the Supreme Court is the sole interpreter of the Constitution--just that it has the last word on any disputed interpretation until the Constitution is amended. That is simply a fact of our current form of government.

"Every branch of government is co-equal is co-equal in its defense of the Constitution. The President has the duty to veto unconstitutional laws. Congress had the job not to pass them, and the Supreme Court has the duty to strike them down. The States as signatories to the Constitution have that right as well, as do the people from whom all the governments powers are granted." The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to decide cases arising out of the Constitution. There are only two ways to overturn the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution: for the Constitution to be amended, or by a later iteration of the Supreme Court to reverse the decision. There is nothing else Congress or the President or the States can do about it. The Supreme Court thus has the power to say what the law IS at at any given time--if the people don't like it, they can amend the Constitution or try to elect a government that will replace the members of the Supreme Court with persons of a different viewpoint.

"Drinking the kool-aid" has become a common expression inside the Beltway for people who have uncritically bought into their group's views--it's sort of like calling somebody a "dittohead." Trivia fact: They didn't drink Kool-Aid at Jonestown--it was Flavor-Ade.

Who has the power to decide whether BSA should change its policy on membership requirements? It's been pretty clearly established that BSA's own leaders have that power--not the government. Therefore, the only hope of changing the policy is convincing those leaders that they should do so. It is going to be difficult for persons who demonized BSA and pursued all sorts of lawsuits against the organization to do that. I also submit that persons who refer to religious beliefs as "hobgoblins" probably have a ways to go in the persuasiveness department as well.

"Article 1, Section 8 clearly spells out the only instances in which Congress can spend money and there is nothing that remotely mentions public health in any form." James Madison agreed with you, but Alexander Hamilton thought the General Welfare clause should have a broader interpretation. In 1936, the Supreme Court settled the matter, in favor of the Hamiltonians. Therefore, since the interpretations of the Supreme Court are the last word on the meaning of the Constitution unless the people choose to amend it, the Constitution does allow for appropriations for nonenumerated purposes that serve the General Welfare...like public health. You may wish that the law were different, but you can't really say that it is different, because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the judicial power to make determinations of constitutional law.

On the "no camo" rule: 1. BSA does not have, as far as I have ever been able to find, a specific rule against camoflage clothing. 2. BSA does have a rule against imitating military uniforms, and many people have interpreted that as a prohibition against, at the very least, old military uniform parts, or military-style camo. 3. BSA does have rules about complete uniforms, so wearing camo pants with a BSA shirt is against this rule (although no different from blue jeans in this respect). 4. As for "civilian" or hunting camo (i.e., outerwear that is not part of the uniform), many good arguments have been made for scouts not wearing such clothing: Scouts don't hunt, there is no reason to reduce visibility on scout outings, etc. 5. Some scout camps, units, camporees, etc. have a rule against camo and have enforced the rule. 6. Who needs the headache of dealing with people who think there is a rule, or with people who think the camo is too military? For Tigers, how about bright orange? That would link up with Tiger colors, and also would make it harder for them to sneak up on you.

I note that there has been some disagreement here about the use of the term "Uniform Police." Some have found this term to be overly negative, but I think its real problem is its inaccuracy. The persons who have been the target of this epithet generally do not have the power to enforce the rules against the offender; rather, they simply point out, more or less publicly, the infraction. I would like to suggest new, more accurate epithets, for the persons at the extremes of this issue. I suggest that persons who point out minor uniform infractions to persons over whom they have no authority be described as "Uniform Pharisees." This, I think, captures, the sanctimonious and picky nature of some of these criticisms. On the other hand, I suggest that persons who insist on wearing incorrect uniforms despite full knowledge be referred to as "Uniform Libertines," as they are persons not restrained by common rules and morality. Both of these terms are sufficiently pejorative, I think, and sufficiently extreme that many of us can claim to be in a moderate position between them.

The way this should have been handled was for some wise person to take the boy and his mother aside and advise them to withdraw the request for the BOR until the record has been expunged. I tend to think that is still the way this should be handled now--that same wise person should tell the SM to step back as well and stop fanning the flames. The mother should be advised that if she really wants everybody in town to be focusing on her son's crime, she should appeal. If she doesn't want that, she should wait.