Kahuna

Siiiiiigggggh! I knew I was wasting my time, but I got into it anyway.

I'm curious who you checked with to get the answer on that uniform issue. Someone who has the authority to waive the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America? If those rules are not correct as written (see my citation above), then which other ones are waivable? Can you see where I'm going here? That rule is clear as glass. Yet it doesn't make a diddle of a difference. If that's the case, there must be some more that, while graven in stone, don't matter either.

Having said that, I now find I have nothing further to say on this topic.

BW: I'm not sure there's any limit on the number of sidearms a scout leader can wear, assuming he isn't breaking any laws. :-) My square knot reference had to do with a discussion on another thread where it was suggested that leaders should wear all their square knots.

Can you honestly tell me that you have never, in your Scouting career, broken some traffic law or safety rule when Scouts were present? Made a turn without your blinker on or gone 4 miles over the limit on a wide open highway? Do you think most Scouters could honestly answer that they haven't?

I could probably cite a number of actual BSA rules that could be violated without bringing chaos into the lives of boys, although I doubt you will agree with any of my choices. I will therefore cite a fairly mundane example, since this all started with uniforms. As you may or may not know, Sea Scouting uniforms are not available from National Supply Service. We essentially buy our uniforms from the Navy. Of course, they don't come with "Sea Scouts, B.S.A." strips sewn on. The cost of obtaining the strips and having them sewn on the uniform is about the same or more than simply having the words embroidered on the shirt above the pocket, using the regular strip as a guide so that it looks the same. So that's what a lot of us do. It is also what the National Sea Scout Commodore does and she wears her uniform at national events including jamborees. Yet, if you read the first two pages of Rules and Regulations as set out in the 2005 Insignia Guide, you will see that no alterations or additions to insignia as approved by the BSA are permitted. I have absolutely no feeling that this contravention is inappropriate and would have no hesitation explaining to youth members that this method is available and simply makes more sense than some alternatives.

What officers do is based on pride, tradition and leadership ability. Enlisted people do, to some degree, what they can get away with, but they also do what they are inspired to do by their leaders, the officers. General Patton was a leader who was usually in trouble because he violated a lot of rules (the least of which were wearing twin personal sidearms for example and donning rank insignia before his promotions were actually finalized), but his men would follow him anywhere because they respected him and to some degree feared him.

Boy Scouts are much the same way. As a Scout leader, you should ALWAYS consider how your example affects the kids you lead. I just don't think the fact that you wear or don't wear all your square knots is going to turn your troop into Lord of the Flies.

I seem to get drawn into all these discussions about rules no matter how hard I try to stay out. Rules are certainly important, but as pointed out above, some are more important than others. I much prefer to teach my kids the fine art of using judgment, rather than simply leaning on the rules. I think you would find the same attitude in the infantry.

Uniform rule violations are truly petty stuff. Certainly the kids in your troop will reflect your attitude and appearance and if you wish to have them properly uniformed you must show the example. But to go into minor infractions as comparable to YP violations is a bit much. In Sea Scouting, for some obscure reason, the "nationals" have decided that six square knots are enough and we are prohibited from wearing more. A lot of Sea Scouters (I am not one) disregard that rule and it doesn't bother me at all.

I was in the USAF, active duty and reserve, for 30 years and rose to a fairly high rank. In the early 1970's the USAF switched from a khaki summer uniform to a light blue/dark blue combination. You were supposed to wear black shoes and black socks with it. For some reason, I never seemed to have any black socks and always wore dark blue ones. After a while, it became a sort of badge of honor with me to always wear the dark blue socks. You could say I was setting a bad example for the people serving under me, I guess, but both I and they did pretty well at promotion time.

It is important, I believe, to train Scouters and Scouts in what the rules are. It is also important to know when some of them should be disregarded and can be safely disregarded.

Safety is important, YP is important. Sometimes the rules on safety or YP may not be sufficient to cover a situation and you may need a higher standard. Other times, your judgment will tell you to go easy on some situations. I don't think anyone who can't the difference could be a very good leader in scouting or anythng else.

You can't cover everything with rules. Judgment will produce better results than a rule book every time.

Seems like the answer to that sort of depends on who is starting the unit. Seeing as how you can essentially sponsor yourself by creating an organization, club, corporation, etc., as your own sponsor, it more depends on the resources of the group. If you have experience, a group of adults willing to serve and a place to meet, you are probably all set. I don't know what the experience of everyone has been regarding CO's, but I've seen quite a few that don't provide much apart from a COR and a place to meet. I know that's not how it's supposed to be, and that the unit has to cultivate the sponsor to get the support they need, but as a practical matter, that's the way it is. The unit I work with here is sponsored by an organization that can't (for security reasons) even offer us a place to meet other than in daytime. They do give us storage/office space, but no leaders, no money or any of the other stuff we really need. It works to our advantage in this case, because the sponsor has a large presence and use of the name is helpful. They will help us to the extent they can and our COR will attend Council functions if we press him. We use facilities provided by other organizations, so otherwise we would be about as well off being sponsored by the 501©(3) we created to own our boats.

I would hope that deep down we all want to see a more loving, more caring society.

Amen to that, Eamonn. BTW, my last post was more in the nature of expressing my sadness that we don't have the same uncomplicated society that those pioneers of scouting had than complaining about the rules.

Eamonn, I suppose you are correct. I keep thinking about how scouting started in the first place: B-P said, "No one saw the start of it, the blooming thing just started itself . . . [in 1907-1908] boys were writing to me, who were not members of [organizations like YMCA and Church Lads Brigade for whom he had written 'Scouting For Boys'], telling me that they had formed patrols and organized troops and gotten men to be their Scoutmasters." Somewhat the same thing happened in parts of the U.S. As I mentioned on another thread, in 1910, the BSA accepted applications from men who wanted to be Scoutmasters, issued them a commission and expected them to organize a troop and a committee. The first "Handbook For Scoutmasters" didn't come out until 1913. I wonder what those guys would have thought of our current rules and regulations?

This is a great program and, as you say, we are lucky to have the talent and enthusiasm in it that we do. Especially when we live in an era when the ACLU is on our tails all the time and when ambulance chasers are lurking in the weeds waiting for us to screw up. Amazing we can still get people to be leaders when you think about it.

Thanks for posting that. I watched the whole thing yesterday and I agree that it was a pretty fair and level-headed forum. The UU guy had some good points, but I don't think they carried the day. I was surprised to hear the favorable comments about Roger Baldwin and the ACLU original founders. I don't know if they were anti-communist in the 1950's or not, but they certainly were communist sympathizers in the beginning. Roger Baldwin was one the witnesses whose commentary was used in the movie "Reds."

If he can't go to this one, sounds like he only has three choices: either apply to go as an adult leader or join a Venture unit, or apply for Jambo staff. I would think the Hundredth Anniversary Jambo is gonna book up pretty early. I don't know about other Venture types, but Sea Scouting seems to be always looking for youth to staff their operation.

You guys (Fuzzy Bear and packsaddle) have a much more optimistic view than I do of how likely it is that we would ever have a tax system in this country that is anything like truly fair to all! :-) As long as there is a liberal element in government and a conservative element in government, there will always be tax breaks for somebody. Maybe if they were all Libertarians . . . well, probably not even then.

Tongue firmly in cheek . . .

Glad I could bring a little Aloha into your day! :-) Yes, Hawai'i isn't paradise, but it gets real close at times. We have a real nice Scout Camp up on the North Shore where a lot of mainland troops come for summer camp, btw.

It's true that we have a very materialistic culture and most people are living beyond their means. The part of this that bothers me is that people think they can buy off their kids with material things. There is a lot of pressure for them to have the same things they see other kids with, but people just don't use good judgment in buying them a $38K car (or any kind of car, IMHO). You can't use the old, "Back in my day we only had . . ." anymore, kids are way too smart for that. But people can say "no way" and stick to it. What's really sad is that most kids just want more time with their parents in activities like scouts.

I should clarify a bit what I am getting at. As I indicated in my original post, clearly some posters are either in obvious need of correction or they are flat out seeking it. My remarks have more to do with a sort of "gotcha" spirit I see in some posts responding to what people are discussing. I agree it's much better to clarify your sources if you are citing some BSA or local council policies as a reason not to do (or to do) certain things. I am a lawyer, after all :-) However, there's a lot more to Scouting than just policies.

FB and Prairie Scouter have pretty much hit my meaning, I think: it just seems that a little less "gotchas" and a little more old timer wisdom would strike a better cord. It's just my feeling that if I were a scouting newbie, I would be inclined to lurk more and post less if I thought I was going to get sort of piled on.

I've been in scouting for over fifty years (and you can work out how old and crusty that would make me), so I'm not much intimidated by any comments, but I just wanted to offer these thoughts for consideration.

Again, this is a great forum and a wonderful source of resources from some really experienced scouters and I appreciate the opportunity to be part of it.

I'm pretty new to this forum and I have enjoyed the discussions here very much. I've learned a lot about Boy Scouting in the 21st Century, having been out of touch in Sea Scouting for the past 10 years or so. Even though some threads deteriorate into personal arguments, that is pretty much a part of human nature and I'd rather see that than suppression of discussion.

Having said that, there is one aspect of forum conduct that I don't like and don't see the need for. No topic, it seems, can get beyond the second or third post without a, "Sounds like you are violating rule number 983-4(a)(2), section 23, which provides . . ." Or, "Have you considered that some people interpret the Scout Law to contradict everything you say your unit is doing?"

Obviously, one reason that people post here is to learn about scouting methods and also the important stuff like YP and safety that must be considered from time to time. Clearly, if someones posts that his unit is considering a nudist weekend with kegs of beer, it should be pointed out why this isn't, a) legal and b) a good idea. However, it strikes me that many of these rebuffs are gratuitous and may serve to deter people who otherwise would ask questions or pose thoughts from doing so.

Am I the only Scouter on the forum who has this feeling?

Remember that the tax exemption extends not just to churches, but to all not-for-profits, including the BSA and many of our chartered organizations. If we all had to pay tax, all those institutions would suffer. If people couldn't donate money that is tax deductible, it would decrease giving more than you think.

Eagle90: Amen!

I don't know that it should be a requirement for advancement, but I think it is a scouting skill. If nothing else, boys need to understand just how unsafe it is rely on them completely. A lot of people have gotten into trouble when they count on the GPS to get them around safely. Seems like integrating GPS use into scouting activities would be a good idea.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was never a big fan of West until I started doing some in-depth research as to his role in origins of the BSA. I suspect he may not have been a really likeable guy, but that's just a guess. I never heard GBB say anything about him one way or the other. However, what I have learned about him supports just exactly what the article claims about how he made BSA a really viable operation for the whole country.

BW is correct that homosexuality is not a YP issue. I'm not sure but I believe most of the apprehended molesters in scouting have been married to someone of the opposite sex. IMHO, what it is about is that the BSA would lose a vast number of sponsoring organizations, including the entire LDS membership, and many parents would pull out of a program that allowed overtly gay people as leaders. I think it's just that simple.

As to stated values and morality, remember that not all religions regard homosexuality as morally wrong and not all people see it as a moral issue at all. If you see it as a moral issue, it is based upon your religious views, which under BSA's religious declarations may vary widely.

This is a complex issue. In it's simplest form, though, it seems to me best for the Scouts to not be confronted with any leaders sexual preferences, although if the leaders are married with kids, I guess something is implied. :-) On the other hand, if a leader is single, it doesn't have to necessarily mean anything.

I watched Follow Me Boys on DVD and it really still holds up. A little corny by todays standards, but still a classic. I always loved the part where Hoodoo turns up as the Governor.

My experience and that of other Venture leaders I know has not been that there are problems of sexual relationships or activities between the boys and girls. The problem that everyone seems to have is when members of the same unit date each other, then break up, it's hard for them in some cases to stick around, so you lose one or both. Certainly we have to be aware of hormones calling and during overnight activities "assist" them in maintaining their standards (and their distance). Having said all that, I still feel boy only units are best. Some Sea Scout units end up creating two units, one for girls and one for boys, with some joint activities. As to the younger boys, they really need to be in all male groups at that age. It certainly is true that opening BSA to girls would pretty much trash the Girl Scouts.

Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill.

Thanks for the heads up. Should be worthwhile to see what they have to say.

Good topic! I lost about 18 pounds doing Atkins/South Beach about a year ago. I haven't lost any since, but I haven't gained it back, either. I'm thinking about Weight Watchers now, because I'd like like to lose about 30 more. I'm not sure about it, because it's important that I keep it off and the Atkins/South Beach is doing that. I'm 5'10" and about 207 right now. I'm not doing any outdoor Scouting anymore, so Scout food doesn't really affect me.

Correction, Tortdog, BSA says OVERT homosexuals can't be leaders. It they are "out" as gay, they are out as BSA leaders. Like the military don't ask don't tell.