Hunt

You just made my day.

No, I'm not prepared to engage in a crusade for new Scout pants. I don't care that much. But I think it was a fair point that we shouldn't complain without doing something about it. So I took a look at the Supply Division's website at www.scoutstuff.org to see how one might make comments. First, they have a customer survey. Among the questions is a list asking for the most important change they should make in the pants, if they make them. You could only choose one, so I chose changing the fabric. There was a similar question about shirts. There was no way to make a text comment as part of the survey. Then I looked at the uniform FAQ. The first two questions were about pants and shorts, so I guess they realize this is a hot topic. To the question of when BSA will change the pants again, this is the answer: "The bottoms that we introduced in 1999 are very functional and have been a great improvement from the previous edition. We are striving for continuous improvement, researching and testing new styles, different fabrics, and many other opportunities to fulfill our mission." (In other words, "top men" are working on the problem.) There was a block where you could propose other questions for the FAQ, and I asked them to be more specific about how the current pants are functional, in that they aren't very comfortable and aren't well-suited for outdoor activities. Now, I feel that this level of participation in the official information-gathering process of BSA gives me license to bellyache about the pants all I want (as long as I continue to wear them). I would urge others to go and do likewise.

A few points. First, the presentations were made during lunch, according to the opinion, not classtime. In fact, the primary point of dispute is whether such presentations could be allowed during non-instructional time. I'm sure it was a mistake when Merlyn mentioned classtime, not a deliberate untruth. Second, this is a bizarre decision, given that the same court had previously ruled that there was no establishment of religion problem with the practice. It seems to me that this is a backdoor way of reversing that decision without admitting it. There's really no "discrimination" here, unless other groups were excluded from making such presentations. If any community group that wanted to make presentations, including religious, atheist, or whatever groups were allowed in, obviously that would not be discrimination against the students. Yet that isn't even mentioned. Why? Maybe that's how the superintendant will fix the problem.

I would draw the line at fangs, at least until the Scout has earned his Tot'n Chip.

I can imagine that some COs might object to any "occult" practices--ie, Ouija boards, "seances," or Magic Cards. Some parents might also have concerns.

The double-stick stuff you cut out is what I'm talking about.

If you read my first post, you will see that I am imagining a unit in which everyone really does hate the current pants. Maybe there is no such unit. That's why it's a "thought experiment." Fscouter's last post also raises an issue that always troubles me--I guess it is a form of the slippery slope--the one that goes, "If a unit can ignore one rule, it can ignore any rule, and we'll have chaos!" This suggests that all rules are of equal importance. It's like saying that somebody who speeds is no better than somebody who robs banks. Surely you don't think that, say, rolling through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop will inexorably lead to a life of crime--then why should you think that deviating from complete uniforming will lead to booze and dancing girls? To restate my conclusion from the thought experiment--a respect for the rules is the only strong argument against the unit decision I described in the first post. This is why I think it's important to have rules that are well thought out and defensible. As an example, I think many speed limits have been set too low around the U.S., and this has led to almost everyone violating the law. This leads to less respect for the law. Let me give another Scouting example which I discussed in a long-ago thread. As the troop's advancement coordinator, I received a notice that all the merit badge counselors in the troop would have to file a separate BSA registration form, even if they were already registered in unit positions. I thought this was a silly requirement, and I could never get a straight answer on why this needed to be done (one poster here criticized me for even asking). Of course, I complied--but it left me with less respect for the BSA bureaucracy.

I don't have a problem with the list acco40 reprinted, except that I don't see the word "fun" in there anywhere. While I think the methods of Scouting are great, and the closer a unit adheres to them the better--I have to say that there are more important factors when deciding what unit to join. Are the boys having fun? Do the boys try to sell the troop to the visitors--or is it just the adult leaders who do this? Do the visitors feel welcomed and included by the boys from the beginning? While all the things on the other list may be good, they won't automatically create an environment that will be fun and welcoming for your son--a major part of that will depend on chemistry and the character of the boys and adults who make up the unit. I guess I agree that going on a campout is a good idea--but for me, not so much to see what methods are being used, but to see how the members of the unit interact on a personal level.

I guess I have the same problem with no-money gambling as I would have with candy cigarettes and nonalcoholic beer--the boys are modelling an adult behavior that I consider harmful. But's it's a (mostly) legal adult behavior, and not everyone agrees with me that there's anything wrong with it. I don't know of a legitimate way for adult leaders to ban it, unless it's a rule set by the CO.

It works pretty well. I have noticed also after several washings that the edges of the patches are coming up--especially the larger patches. I think the ideal approach would be to use this product to place the patches and then do at least some stitching to hold them down. I suspect for some uses--like merit badge patches on a sash--that this stuff alone would be good enough. (I haven't tried to remove a patch yet.)

It's easy to explain why it's a good decision--everybody hates the official pants, and the replacement pants still provide a uniform look (although SemperP makes a good point). The issue is whether the reasons it's a bad decision outweigh that--Fscouter and UncleGuinea seem to think the fact that it's contrary to BSA's rules outweighs any other considerations; dan thinks there is a "slippery slope." As I said in the first post, I agree that it would be a bad decision because it's against the rules--but I do think bad rules (or bad pants) tend to erode obedience, especially among people who do not have a longstanding commitment to the organization.

I've always wondered about that statistic that only 5% of Scouts reach Eagle. I'm sure it's true, but isn't it mainly true because so many boys leave Scouting before aging out? I wonder what percent of boys who are still in a troop at age 18 are Eagles--I bet it's much, much higher. To make this relevant to this thread, a troop with really good retention might produce a lot of Eagles, without being a mill at all.

Those not obsessed with the whole scout pants issue can ignore this thread. Let's imagine a Scout troop that does the following (note: I'm not advocating this; in fact I'm against it): The PLC, with the agreement of the Troop Committee, the SM, and the COR, decide that a scout or scouter who is wearing green jeans (of a specified make and color) will not be considered out of uniform by the Troop. Here's the challenge: explain precisely why this is a bad decision. Some possibilities: 1. BSA policy doesn't allow you to change the uniform. 2. The "slippery slope" argument--ignoring one method (or even part of a method) leads to lack of respect for other methods, and for Scouting as a whole. 3. There is something inherently special or better about the Scout pants. 4. Other reasons? Personally, I find only the first reason to be persuasive--which is why I think the official pants should be changed.

"My personal opinion is that uniform objectors don't like being told to wear specific uniform clothes. They don't believe their personal objection is a valid enough reason to not wear. So they make up a myriad of other excuses to not wear." Are you suggesting that I am making up my dislike of the current pants? Or do I get off the hook because I wear them anyway? I don't doubt that there are people who don't want to "look like scouts," but this kind of sweeping generalization is just a way of ignoring genuine complaints about the uniform. Since the uniform has changed and will probably change in the future, I don't think it shows any kind of character flaw to discuss how changes might encourage wavering people to wear it. I get tired of the following kind of exchange here: Poster A: The scout socks are too scratchy. Poster B: The scout uniform is one of the hallowed methods of scouting, you should be proud to wear it, why are you trying to do away with the uniform, etc., etc., etc. I know I'm ranting, but this same kind of logic has come up repeatedly in connection with other criticisms of BSA policies. Really, this is only a minor example.

I can think of a number of reasons a leader might want to ban Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh cards. To get them back, you might want to think of how to refute or respond to these: 1. Some boys become so obsessed with them that it distracts from the program. 2. Because the cards have value, it can create problems, with trading, loss, damage, and even theft. (If the SM works in a school, he may have seen schools institute a ban for these reasons.) 3. The cards (arguably) involve the occult. (If your CO is a church, this may be particularly important.) 4. Only boys who have the cards can play, as opposed to regular cards.

I would also point out that Scouting provides a great variety of experience that a "free spirit" might really like--he might end up with a really unusual set of merit badges. Or he might end up with no merit badges--there is no requirement that he advance if he doesn't want to, for example. I think most free spirits can also understand the need to use teamwork at times.

"What is the one real objection? Its not the fit, the material, the color, or the cost. Its not the style, the patches, or the durability. It is the idea that someone else has dictated what the uniform shall be. There is only one rack to choose from. The underlying objection is the loss of control, the loss of choice." I can't help feeling a bit offended that you state what the "one real objection" is when so many people have said that their objection is something else. Perhaps you think we're deluding ourselves--I assume you don't think we're being untruthful. Look, if boys (and adults) were concerned primarily about lack of choice and individuality, you would see more resistance to the scout shirt. I don't see this. What I see is lots of people--including me--who really don't like the current pants. Personally, I don't like the cheesy fabric, and others don't like the cut. It's certainly not the color--as FScouter has observed, scouts will often willingly wear other pants that have a very similar color. They aren't doing this to assert their individuality. I also resent the suggestion that we need to "rise above" and "make the right choice" to wear the uniform--many of us DO wear the uniform. I wear--and I still don't like the pants. Why can't BSA make the "right choice" and give us some decent pants?

I wonder when he was a Cub Scout leader? Apparently he has grown children. In any case, apparently no background check would have turned up anything questionable about this guy.

I guess I haven't seen boys pocket enough easy MBs early on to make getting palms too easy--I suppose that could be an issue if they got really large numbers. On the flip side, I don't really like seeing an older scout go and get his Fingerprinting MB just to make his numbers.

"I'm not so sure that that's true. If I were to belong to a religion that believes in the inclusion of gays, then that would seem to be odds with Scout doctrine. Taken to its conclusion, then, I wouldn't be able to sign an adult leader app that requires me to agree with Scout doctrine, which would disallow me from Scouting." I think you're mixing up two issues, the belief in God requirement and the no-gays membership requirement. Although there is some connection, they aren't the same. There is nothing you have to sign that would "disallow" from Scouting if you disagree with BSA on its membership standards--as opposed to whether you believe in God. Perhaps what you're really trying to say is that while on the one hand BSA says it's completely nonsectarian and accepts believers in any religion, on the other hand some of its standards--in particular the one excluding openly gay members--seem drawn from a particular religious tradition. I think that's a fair comment, and worth discussing. But it belongs in a "gay members" thread, not an "atheism" thread.

At this point in the conversation, somebody will usually say that parents will spend money for expensive sneakers, sports equipment and uniforms, etc., etc., etc., and so why should they quibble about the cost of Scout pants? I think VAordeal puts his finger on it--it's not the cost per se, but the value for money that seems off. I mean, there is nothing special about these pants other than the fact that they are exclusively available from one source. They aren't very well tailored, and they're made from (in my opinion) an inferior fabric.

I would like to say a bit more in favor of "easy" merit badges. I do think they help some scouts get into the swing of earning MBs, and some of them can be earned pretty quickly, getting the process going. The more immediate gratification is encouraging. I guess my ideal would be for a boy to have one or two "harder" badges going, and to pick up easier ones along the way at MB fairs, camp, etc.

In my opinion, if this is coming up for the first time at the BOR stage--if the SM has signed off the requirements--it's too late to do anything to delay this boy's advancement to Life. There is nothing more demoralizing to a youth than for adults to appear to be changing the rules after the fact. The best you can do is to counsel him how to do better in the next phase. What you can do, however, is take a look at your program to see how you got to this point, and take corrective action to prevent the next boy from facing the same issues.

"You not only have to buy into the idea that you have to believe in a God to be a Scout, you have to believe in the God that BSA has chosen." But this just isn't so--you can believe in any God, or god, or gods, you want, just as long as you have some kind of religion. Also, where do you get the idea that Scouting was once inclusive of those who don't believe in any religion?

Note that Merlyn doesn't actually deny trolling. What his post really points out, I guess, is that I have allowed myself to be "troll bait" and I have let a troll's rude tactics get under my skin. In my defense, I held my peace for a long time, until Merlyn started calling others liars as well. (I do find it pretty rich that he criticizes somebody else for "whining." Oh well.) Generally, it advised not to "feed the troll" by responding to provocative posts, but it's often hard to resist. I'll try to do better.