Kahuna

For many years there has been a Sea Scout Regatta in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. Units from all over the Southeast have attended and it has become an institution. Recently, the Gulf Ridge Council advised the host unit that their activity was against the rules as they had not received approval from the council executive, who then must notify the region executive and, if kids from other regions are involved, the national office. That part is pretty clear and the guidelines are found in the Activities and Civic Service Committee Guide pamphlet. That part didn't surprise me and I guess I had always thought they had Council clearance to do the regatta. However, Gulf Ridge Council has also told the unit that any time there is an activity involving two units, even in the same council, permission must be obtained from the Scout executive. They are talking about activities where, for example, a Sea Scout Ship invites a Scout Troop for a day of water activity or instruction. This doesn't sound right to me. An argument could be made, I suppose, that whichever unit is away from it's home base might need a tour permit, but I have never thought a separate permission might be required for units in the same council. Anybody have any experience with councils insisting on permission for inter-unit activities within the same council?

Backpacker, With all due respect, I am unable to make any sense out of your answer. Giving ID cards to people who cross the border frequently has nothing to do with illegal immigration. It's not a question of where they work, it's where they reside and what government they look to for benefits. If they live in Mexico and cross the borders frequently, they are not illegals, are they? I don't see how definition 1 comes into it, but I suppose I would agree I'm not willing to endure further illegal immigration, too. (What does someone breaking into your home have to do with this topic?) It means that we do not have be tolerant when it comes to breaking the law or causing harm to us. Tolerance in the sense you mean, as far as I'm concerned, has to do with granting equal respect and rights to those who are entitled to them. Illegal immigrants, by definition, are not so entitled. Neither is a burgler in my home. I'm not at all sure what the separatist movements in Hawai'i have to do with illegal immigration, but I certainly am much more aware of the views of these groups than you are. I assure you that they ARE anti-American. How much more anti-American can you be than wanting to separate from your own country? They certainly do not reflect the views of most of the people of Hawai'i and I do not believe they reflect the views of most of the people of Hawaiian ancestry. People who hold views like yours have given these fringe groups the boost they needed to feel that their views and rights must be accomodated by law. It won't be long, IMHO, before groups of Hispanics in the mainland U.S. are demanding the same rights to secede and form their own nation.

Backpacker: Intolerant is defined by Webster as 1 : unable or unwilling to endure 2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED I assume you aren't talking about 1 or 2 a, so you apparently meant 2 b. I plead guilty to being unwilling to grant or share social, political or professional rights with those who are in this country illegally. Bigoted is defined as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." I certainly am guilty of that as it pertains to 2b above as it relates to illegals. Are you tolerant of someone who breaks into your house and steals your things? Are you tolerant of someone who tries to harm you or your family? BTW, what does the Homeland Security ID system have to do with sneaking across the border?

When GWB was elected I tried to tell people that he would be the worst thing to happen to personal freedoms, womans rights, the environment and education. I am still waiting to proven wrong. Lynda, can you explain exactly how this administration has deprived you of personal freedoms, your rights as a woman (I assume you are a woman:)), impacted the environment or handled education differently that a Democratic presidency under any of their candidates? Just curious.

The Salvation Army, btw, is a Christian relgious denomination. They have churches, pastors and worship services just like Presbyterians or Methodists.

While I am sympathetic to plight of the illegals and would probably do the same thing in their situation, I don't think it is the duty (Christian or otherwise) of this country to take on their burden. They are already becoming a serious problem and it is worsened by the current fashion of multiculturalism, which allows them to be here and not assimilate into the mainstream culture. The numbers of people who read a daily Spanish language paper, watch a Spanish language TV station and listen to Spanish language radio programs is astonishing. We only have to look to Canada to see what happens when you have more than one mainstream culture. I can't be accused of being ethnocentric: I live in the most culturally and racially diverse state in the U.S. Yet the people here are one culture and one language. I'm not a Christian either, but it doesn't seem to me there is anything Christian about self-destructing one's own country. And that is exactly what is happening with illegal immigration on the scale we are seeing.

tjh: I agree completely. I think the Democratic party leadership is out of touch with it's constituancy. Apparently, there is some concerted effort being made by dismayed rank and filers out there to bring the party more in line with mainstream. Meanwhile, I have no real choice but to hang with the Republicans and hope they don't go as far to the right as the other party leadership has to the left. I can only believe that they, like the BSA, will be able to read the tea leaves and see past the waving hands of the religious right. BTW, your take on my screen name reflects pretty much my view of life. :-)

While I agree that the Republican fundamentalist leanings bother me quite a bit and it would be extremely hard to make a case that they stand for fiscal restraint, I would strongly disagree that the Democrats are more Libertarian. BTW, I am Libertarian, but don't vote for that party because it's a wasted vote. There are certainly some issues on the Republican agenda that would limit liberty: abortion, medical marijuana, flag burning bans, etc. They are definitely pandering to the religious right in developing their plans. The Democrats, on the other hand, are pretty anti-democratic, it seems to me. They have been unable to get their agenda enacted into law and have resorted to putting judicial activists on the courts of the U.S. who will simply legislate from the bench. That's exactly how the BSA has gotten itself mired in all these attacks from the ACLU. If the judges in this country would base decisions on law and the Constitution, the ACLU suits would be laughed out of court. I am the furthest thing from a fundamentalist Christian, but it strikes me that our Judeo-Christian origins (notwithstanding the religious views of the Founders, many of whom were without doubt religious liberals of one form or another) has served us pretty well in the value system of the country. I don't care much for the value system of the left, which appears to be that of Michael Moore and Hollyweird: If the evidence contradicts their view of things, they simply lie about it. I agree with the left on many issues, such as abortion rights and medical marijuana, but disagree with them on many more. I particularly disagree with the Democratic left on their apparent feeling that we, the population, are not to be trusted to make our own decisions. They seems to stand for the proposition that they know best and are better able to decide what's good for us. Both parties are guilty of that, but the Democrats more than the Republicans.

I used to do Sam McGee at campfires all time. Boys loved it and I assume they still do. We once taught our boys Monty Python's "Eric the Half a Bee" as well. They learned it, but they didn't get it. I don't think the Benny Hill bit would be too offensive for Boy Scouts, but I'm not sure they'd get it.

I agree that legal immigrants or American born citizens can commit acts of terrorism as well as illegals. The guys who blew up the trains in London were British subjects. Still, there is a danger in having borders that are too open. Legal immigrants and American born terrorists are not likely to be carrying nukes. There are, of course, a lot of ways nukes could be brought in, but I think we are shortsighted if we don't look at our open borders. I disagree that it is not a liberal/conservative issue. Most of the liberals I know favor legalizing illegal immigrants, issuing drivers licenses and giving them the same benefits as citizens. Most of the conservatives I know do not. The unions differ from other liberals in they see a threat to jobs. President Bush has alienated many conservatives because of his stand on immigration. If you listen to conservative talk radio, they are constantly on him about the issue. I do not think the Republican Party as a group favors looser immigration standards and certainly not the moves Hillary favors. The President favors some of those things and doesn't want to say he doesn't favor others. I think he's wrong, but he's the President. A lot of groups and the media is now referring to these illegals as "undocumented aliens," which strikes me as a way to avoid calling them what they are: illegal.

If you don't mind my asking, what religion are you? Buddhist.

OGE, I followed the link, but it didn't take me to the article. It seems to me that there is a politically liberal group of people who feel that illegal immigrants should be as much a part of the culture as anyone else. They give a lot of reasons for this belief, none that impress me too much. The current administration, while not advocating some of these moves, is obviously not eager to put a stop to the illegal influx either. The liberal politicians hope to gain votes from the illegals and the conservative ones don't wish to alienate the (primarily Hispanic) voters they have. It's clear to me that 1) Illegals are illegals and should be sent home, and 2) Someday a terrorist with anthrax or a big bomb is going to come thru the border and kill a lot of people. Why nobody in the government or in the oppostition seems to understand this is beyond me!

That was it. The details are a bit fuzzy in my mind, but it was a fundamentals program. Maybe called "Forward With Fundamentals." Had a shield on it. The idea was to train JL's in the basics and get that going in troops.

But, as for me & my house, we will serve the Lord. In other words, for me, it is all about role modeling & ethics. Yes, Ed, and that's exactly what I'm talking about.I suppose you would be one of those who would leave if the BSA admitted overt gays. There are many more who see their religious duty as you do. In my religion, however, there is no concept of sin per se and no condemnation in dharma of homosexuality (so far as I am aware). I make no criticism of your religion, it is merely different than mine. When the BSA makes its (IMHO inevitable) decision, we will each have to decide what course to follow. It's likely that you would leave and that I would stay. When they decide the balance is more "stay" than "go" they will change policies. It's unfortunate that the BSA is forced to make business decisions like this, but they are confronted with these issues all the time.

I would like to know why the BSA decision makers believe avowed homosexuals would not be good role models. Until they explain that, I have very little ammunition to argue with. The reason is simple and I mentioned it before: It is a profit vs loss calculation. The BSA reckons (probably correctly) that, at this moment, they would lose more membership and units by permitting homosexual members than otherwise. At some future time, if that changes, so will BSA policy. Personally, I think we are very close to that time. I believe the policy will change in my lifetime. Some will leave, some will join. In reality, IMHO, role modeling has little to do with it. Statistics and personal experience show that kids do not emulate the sexual orientation of their leaders. The leaders of the BSA must know that as well.

Yes, the urban councils tended to grab onto it early. I worked for the South Florida Council (Miami) 1970-1973 and they were cranking up before the manuals changed. Oddly enough, they also pioneered the Forward with Green Bar Bill (that's not the exact name, I just don't remember) program during that same time period. It pretty much fizzled out because it was more or less at odds with their other empasis.

That tradition is more myth than fact. The clan tartans were banned by the English after the Battle of Colloden and remained so until the early 1800's, along with the bagpipe. The fact is, nobody knows for sure what, if any clan tartans were prior to that. Some suggest that people wore whatever they could make or get. The Scottish Scouts who wear kilts as part of their uniform keep a kilt closet to provide them. The boys and girls wear whatever happens to be handy, unless they own their own clan tartan. Also, of course, not every Scot is a member of a clan and thus not entitled technically to wear any tartan. It is generally considered fair game to wear Black Watch tartan (uniform of the 42d Regiment, the only ones allowed to wear tartans after Colloden). I've never known a Scot to take offense at Scouts wearing their clan tartan. It just isn't that big a deal with them. BTW, I am a former member of Clan MacLaren, U.S.A, as my grandmother was a MacLaurin. They don't have a problem as far as I know with Scouts wearing their plaid.(This message has been edited by Kahuna)

Bob, you will seldom find me wrong on Scouting history, but it does happen. It didn't happen in this case. The program was developed in the late sixties (I was there) and implementation of testing was done then. You are correct that the handbooks did not come out until the early 70's. Did not! Did too! Did not! Did too! Yada, yada.

Authorized? No. Okay? It's your unit. We had for years a brother unit in Scotland. We visited them and they visited us. They wore kilts and several of our adults did as well (in Scotland and the U.S.) on some occasions. We also had a Highland Ceremonial Team that did flag ceremonies. They wore the MacLaren modern kilt (we got some made out of dress fabric with velcro fasteners so they could be adjusted to fit different size boys). They wore the white gaiters that Scottish ceremonial units wear, white belts, white gloves and the red berets with the universal Scout emblem. They looked very sharp indeed. They appeared at a number of ceremonies, including ones where Bill Hillcourt was present. Bill had no problem with it, and neither did the district bigwigs. I know people will tell you the sky will fall if you wear them, but it won't. Go for it!

Take a look at my post under "Scouty" so I won't have to repeat it here. Is it relevant? Of course it is. As long as boys like it, it's relevant. It does have to change a bit with the times, it always has. What has changed is the leaders, as I point out on the other thread, and the activities we have to compete with. Never has the BSA had as many other organizations and activities competing for the boys time. Never has the BSA been under siege by outfits like the ACLU before. Never have parents had as much concern about what might happen to their boys. I don't think the BSA will ever have the percentage of youth that it has had in the past, but that doesn't reflect anything wrong with the program. It's just that the times they are a' changin'. That shouldn't get us down as long we like the program and as long we find boys who do, too.

Eamonn, I think you hit the nail on the head! Boys have changed, yes, but they still respond the "old" program just the same as they have for almost 100 years. I haven't been directly involved in Boy Scouting for almost 15 years, but I can tell by the posts on these forums and the units that I see from here and the mainland that the leaders are indeed different. Back in the 1960's, the BSA decided that it was "too hard" for many units (urban units) to do camping and outdoor activities, so they dumbed down the program and added a lot of silly activities (and, of course, skill awards). Big mistake! When Bill Hillcourt came out of retirement and rewrote the handbook, he got all that stuff back in there and Scouting flourished again. All our Bill Hillcourts are gone now, as far as I can tell, but outdoor Scouting and all the same old activities are still what boys are craving.

I've always loved the campaign hat. Still have one, although I haven't worn it in years. I don't think I'd ever try to get a whole troop of kids to wear it though. Otherwise: 1-With all due respect, it's pretty silly, IMHO, to suggest that leaders should resign before allowing some deviations in uniforming. The troop in question here is obviously a REAL Scout troop and the stuff they wear has some historical significance. Ribbons were worn by early Scouts for various awards, rather than square knots. Those old troop badges used to be very common and I'm sure their other stuff has historical significance. They look good and do real scouting which is more important to me than whether they are following the insignia guide. 2-Speaking of which, the latest insignia guide does plainly say that the first class insignia, and only that one, is to be worn only by boys on the hat and the universal hat badge by adults. (Not, obviously, that I much care.)

I went thru my Gilwell Book and J.S. Wilson's Scouting Round the World, but could find nothing on five or six beaders. There are several pics of Wilson when he was Camp Chief, but you can't tell how many beads he wore. The only five beader I ever saw was Bill Hillcourt. He had one of the original Dinizulu beads as his fifth bead. I met Lady B-P and have a photo of her, but don't recall and can't count the number of beads she wore.

My two cents worth: I don't think the uniform has anything to do with whether boys join scouting or not. I certainly remember in my own days as a Boy Scout (to the extent I can remember that far back) being teased for being a scout. Yes, I think there's a little more peer pressure today than then about clothing, but not much. I don't really think redesigning the uniform is going to make much difference, but it probably could stand some change. Kids will join scouting if there is an interesting, fun program for them. They will wear their uniforms proundly during scouting activities and try to camouflage them on the way to and from. That's how it's always been to some extent. I remember almost 40 years ago a Scout who brought his uniform in a paper sack and changed in the rest room. I do think the worst thing we could do would be make it okay to wear the shirt with anything they want. I go back to the incident I saw on Flag Day at the Battleship Missouri with a troop of Scouts in shirts, neckerchiefs and pretty much anything else they wanted. They looked terrible and had no sense of pride about themselves. Years ago, we had a ceremonial team that did colors ceremonies in public forums. We picked the boys who participated and practically hand dressed them to make sure their uniforms looked right. They looked sharp and carried the colors proudly and with almost military precision. Seems to me that we might offer more uniform options, a new design, maybe a camping uniform and do a lot of other things that would make the uniform better, but that we need to hang onto it. Scouting would still be scouting without a uniform, but not the same scouting.

The BSA is a corporation, therefore an Inc, whether or not they choose to use it. So, it isn't inappropriate to say BSA, Inc. That the purpose of this corporation shall be to promote, through organization and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in Scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods which are now in common use by Boy Scouts. Sec. 3, federal charter, Boy Scouts of America June 15, 1916, by the United States Congress Most states require that their corporations use some designation to show that they are corporations, but presumably Congress has not so specified. I don't see any reason that it should be a pejoritive, except that some of Juris posts may have cast it in that light.