NJCubScouter

I really do wish we could all find some middle ground. The funny thing is, most of "we", meaning most of the actual voters, seem to have done just that. "All" of we never will. Despite the pundits and radio commentators and everybody trying to pull everybody in different directions (mostly to the right on the radio, slightly more balanced on tv), the results of this election were "moderate" in several ways. Despite the availability of several lifelong, hard-right conservatives, the Republicans nominated someone with a reputation as a "moderate conservative" and a "maverick", although he had to run more to the right than he usually has in order to get the nomination. I listen to some of these guys on the radio (Levin because he is on when I am driving home, but sometimes also Limbaugh and Hannity) and they were almost apoplectic about the idea that McCain would be nominated. They (or at least Levin) were calling him a liberal and every other name in the book, or at least the FCC-approved book. And yet, their "base", the Republican Party, nominated McCain anyway. (Levin, etc. did get behind McCain after Obama was nominated, of course, but they dropped him fast after the election.) I think that proves that these guys, as loud and nasty and famous as they may get, have only as much "power" as the voters give them, and this year that wasn't much. On the Democratic side, although there is no doubt that Obama is a liberal, I think he realizes what he has to do now, and that is to govern from the center. I think he is going to govern from pragmatism, rather than from his ideology, whatever exactly that may be. I think that was clear from his inaugural speech. Despite right-wingers picking out bits and pieces and calling them "socialist" or whatever, I think it was a very moderate, traditional-American-values, we're all in this together, sort of speech. And I think that is how he is going to do his job. Let's also remember that punditry and commentating are businesses, and Limbaugh and all the rest are in the business first and foremost to make money. So they have no interest in finding middle ground. Nobody in that business makes money by being a moderate. But being moderate, or at least giving people the expectation that you will act moderately, is what gets people elected president, and I think that is what has just happened.

So Gern, you doubt that we have had any presidents at all? Good luck with that.

Well clearly only 43 people have taken the oath . . . And clearly there have only been 43 presidents, including Obama... and yet Obama is the 44th president.

Call me liberal (as many have, with only partial accuracy), but I have no problem with adding incidental words such as the president's name and "so help me God." The Bible is a non-issue. It is not required, nor can it possibly be prohibited, since it is not a word that is being spoken. It is just a tradition, like the tradition that the president wears a business suit when being sworn in, as opposed to a clown suit or a bathing suit. On the other hand, subtracting words, or changing their order, is an entirely different matter. The Constitution prescribes the words, so they need to be done correctly. The Chief Justice flubbed his lines, which happens sometimes, tried to correct himself, flubbed them again (I think he left out one word the second time) and President Obama had to make a split-second decision which version to repeat. So they fixed it the next day. I think the Republic will survive. By the way, there is no inconsistency between the 20th Amendment and the requirement of the oath. The 20th Amendment says the president and v.p. take office at noon, and so they do. Article 2, Section 1 does not say the oath is taken before the president takes office, it says the oath is taken "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office." In other words, before he (or she!) actually does anything the Constitution requires or permits the President to do. Sitting next to the podium waiting for a ceremony to start is not one of the president's duties, so the fact that he was sitting there for six (or whatever) minutes, un-sworn-in, is not a problem. If he had been sitting there signing executive orders or vetoing bills before he was sworn in, that might be a problem. Now, what about the stuff he did sign on Tuesday afternoon and on Wednesday, before the oath was re-administered? My guess is that the White House lawyers had him sign all of that again, or at least sign some statement that everything he signed in those 30-odd hours is ratified, or something like that. Then there's the 43rd/44th president business. In reality, Obama is the 43rd president (starting with GW, as we do), but that issue was decided the other way a long time ago, when the bad decision was made to count Grover Cleveland as both 22nd and 24th president. So if, officially and legally, Obama is the "44th President", is it really wrong for him to say he is the 44th person to take the oath? Who knows? The problem is that he isn't really the 44th President, but that isn't his doing.

If I recall, the old site was somewhat unclear about how "official" it was; it is good to see they have replaced it with a site that is clearly official. I did notice a somewhat odd wording on the front page: "Enjoys participating with his or her Scout and inspires their child to persevere in Scouting with their tenure, activity participation and achievement" Persevere? As in, struggle through a difficult experience? I am not sure that is exactly the word they were looking for there. (Yes, I remember the old slogan, "Follow the Rugged Road", but I don't think that would work too well today.) I think I understand what they were getting at; the word "continue" would probably be the most accurate, but they might have thought that would have a slightly negative connotation, suggesting that not enough boys continue in Scouting now. (Which is true, but I don't think National wants to say so on its web site.) But the connotations of "persevere" are even more negative. Maybe they should have just picked a neutral word like "participate" and left it at that... but they already have the word "participating" in the sentence. "Enjoy", maybe? Oops, that's already there too. I can sympathize with the problem, as I have sometimes been stuck for the correct word in my writing, but there must be some way to improve on "persevere." The word conjures up the image of two ten-year olds trying to carry a canoe, and there's three miles to go, uphill (both ways)...

I think Neil's post is very helpful because it answers a question that a number of us have been wondering about, which is, if Scouting exists in Latin American countries now, why don't immigrant families get involved here in greater numbers? If indeed it is more of an "upper class" thing in those countries, that would explain it, because logic would suggest that most immigrants are not in the "upper class". (Although that may be somewhat less true for immigration from some of the Asian countries, where if not "upper class" many immigrants are at least of the "professional class.") I have sort of puzzled over why more of the local Hispanic boys don't seem to get involved in Scouting, when I think most units would be happy to deal with language issues and whatever other hurdles may exist, to get more boys involved. I guess part of the problem is that the "white folks" who make up a unit's leadership (that would include me) don't necessarily understand what the hurdles are. If the BSA's new program includes some "education" (for both "sides") and other means of "breaking down barriers", I think that would be a good thing. (Based on some of the posts, I understand some people might have an issue with part of what I'm saying, but so be it. I've been accused of being "liberal" and "PC" before, I can handle it.) I also agree with Neil about the changes made in the early 70's (while I was a Boy Scout.) They certainly tried to do too much too fast and some of it was a bit misguided, but it wasn't anywhere near the disaster that many people have portrayed. My troop did camping and hiking and high/medium adventure to the same degree as before, and in fact more, because right around the same time we had a new Scoutmaster who gave it more emphasis. (I called him Dad.) I went to Philmont and the expeditions were fully booked, just as they are today. I do not know how many units or Scouts took advantage of the option to do Scouting without outdoor activities, but I never noticed a change in the actual program. So, there were some things in the "new" (1972-ish) handbook that seemed a little odd, and signaling, tracking etc. didn't need to be wiped out entirely, but I don't think it fundamentally changed how Scouting was actually practiced for the vast majority of people. And I think some of the changes were positive, for example the greater emphasis on environmental awareness, and it also wasn't a bad idea to have some faces in the handbook that weren't white. (There I go again.) As for the red berets, again I agree with Neil. My father liked to point out that the trend in BSA headwear basically followed the trends in the military, from the Smokey-the-Bear hats of the early 20th century to the "flat hats" of WW2, to the berets of the 60's and then the baseball caps of more recent times. Since they didn't want to copy the military directly, the beret was red instead of green (although as part of my inherited collection of Scouting memorabilia, I do have a green beret of Canadian Scouting that someone gave my father), and some units chose it, though many didn't. A few years ago my son's troop shared a summer campsite with a troop that all wore red berets, and I thought it looked cool. I think if a troop has chosen a particular hat and the kids wear it proudly and don't act like they're ashamed of it, it will look fine. (When the option came up in the early 70's, my troop chose the Smokey hat ("campaign hat"?) but I think after 4 or 5 years (after my time) the novelty wore off and they switched to the baseball cap.) If you want to know what really caused Scouting's numbers to decrease starting in the early 70's, I think you have to begin with the declining birth rate with the end of the "baby boom." I don't have a link handy, but I have seen the statistics and I think the birth rate since the 80's has been something like 60 to 70 percent of what it was in the late 50's (when I was born.) While the population of the U.S. has steadily increased, I'm pretty sure the annual number of births has never gotten back to the level of the late 50's and it has usually been way below that. I think the availability of a wider variety of activities has probably been a factor, and the "un-coolness" aspect has been a factor, but probably not as much as sheer demographics. In that sense, the BSA is obviously correct that it needs to attract more members of "under-represented" ethnic groups that are becoming an ever-greater percentage of the population. I also agree regarding the Cub Scout program. I think a lot of kids and parents do feel that they have had enough of Scouting by the time they join a Boy Scout troop. And, although I know the BSA has been trying to make the transition as seamless as possible, the fact that they are different units and that there may not be a troop at the same location as the pack, seems to be a barrier for some people. Even after they join a troop, some of the kids decide not to continue past a few months. I think some of the parents don't really encourage the boys to continue because they are not comfortable with the sudden change from adult-run to boy-run (or boy-led, whichever you prefer.) But then again, many do continue. I'm not sure what the BSA can do that they haven't already done; it would be counterproductive to discontinue the Tiger program at this point and I don't expect it to happen. I am just happy that they have resisted the temptation to have a kindergarten program (at least so far.) And with all that, my son's troop is in the same general size range (30-40 active) as my troop was in the 70's. (If I can say "my troop", referring to the one I was in as a boy, since nobody will think I am saying I owned it.) So, who knows?

Eagle92, when the CSE talks about a "reinventing" of the BSA, that sounds to me like more than just a marketing campaign. What they actually are going to do, however, remains to be seen. I notice that the only ideas in the article that even approach anything specific come from a university professor who is not identified as having any connection with the BSA effort. He seems to just be someone that the newspaper reporter called for a reaction to what the BSA is doing. So when this professor talks about relaxing the emphasis on individual achievement in favor of more family activities, and stressing community events (a carne asada is essentially a barbecue, as the Internet has just helpfully taught me) over "sending kids away", that is just his opinion, not necessarily anything the BSA is planning. Of course, barbecues in a park and similar events would be nothing new for the Boy Scouts, and there already is a BSA family program. What this guy really seems to be saying is that Hispanics do not go for things like sending their kids to summer camp, without the family members going along. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. And as for de-emphasizing individual achievement, I suspect the BSA isn't really going to do that in any meaningful way. They will probably try to carry this out by adding a few things, marketing things better, and possibly by hiring some more professionals who will focus their time on this effort.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Actually diogenes, you could do more than that. I clicked through the different metal options and the highest-priced gold was more than $1,700 for the Eagle ring. You could probably go even higher with some additional customization, but at that point I was getting dangerously close to where it was going to start asking for a credit card number and I didn't even want to even apprach that point. (I'm not an Eagle anyway.) As for the basic ring, I think it was about $180, and I wouldn't buy it even if I were eligible, but I can see some people doing that. I kind of doubt this company will sell many of the Wood Badge rings, that seems way overboard to me, but I guess how people want to spend their money is their business. It also would be interesting to know how much of a cut the BSA gets on these things.

Do you always worry about things that haven't happened and may not ever happen? With all the possible things that could encompass how would you ever get anything else accomplished? Bob, when the BSA "strongly encourages" its members to do something, I don't think its unreasonable to anticipate that some of them might actually do it. Brent, I agree with you, and I guess I am a case study. By changing my eating habits (which, in retrospect, were pretty bad), I myself have managed to lose about 40 pounds in less than 2 years, taking me from well over the maximum to well within the "acceptable" range on this chart. ("Recommended" is another 20 pounds or so away, but through more exercise I could probably get close.) I am healthier, generally do feel better, and agree that I am a better role model both for the Scouts and for my own family. (And I don't think it is a complete coincidence that my son (now 17) made similar changes to his own eating habits and has dropped more than 15 pounds, so he's only about 5 over the "recommended" range.) Nevertheless, what I have managed to do is much more difficult for some people. I am concerned about the possibility of a significant disruption in the program if this is not all handled properly and in reasonable stages. I do not have any problem with the "high adventure" aspect if it is clarified to mean what Bob thinks it means, and what I hope it means, but which the BSA's own FAQ seems to contradict. But when the BSA "strongly encourages" the adoption of these limits for "all other events", as I said above, that seems pretty clear and potentially disruptive.

Bob says: Inability to meet the height/weight limit does not mean you cannot be a volunteer in the BSA programs. It only means that you will not be allowed to risk your welfare or the welfare of others by participating in High Adventure activities. The second sentence there does not take into account the sentence on the new health form, "Enforcing the height/weight limit is strongly encouraged for all other events, but it is not mandatory." All that can be said for sure is that the limits will be enforced for "high adventure activities" (which seem to be defined by the 30-minute rule.) There is no way to know what other activities will or will not be subject to the limits. Apparently it will be up to each council, and/or each summer camp director, and/or each district... and/or each CO, for a troop event? How far does it go? And if it is applied to enough events, there are plenty of current volunteers who might have to conclude that they are no longer effective in the positions they now hold. As I said above, I have my doubts about whether this is going to happen anytime soon. But based on the language of the form, I don't see how you can say with any certainty that it is not going to happen. I agree that it is a "good thing" for high adventure activities, but time will tell whether it is going to be applied in situations where it is not such a "good thing."

Hal says: I also reread the last part of the passage from the form: "Enforcing the height/weight limit is strongly encouraged for all other events, but it is not mandatory". I now take this to mean that they recommend enforcing the limits for ALL events, even those that do not involve high adventure or are within the 30 minute radius. Am I nuts or is that what they really mean? That's what it seems to say. What summer camps, councils etc. will interpret it to mean, and whether they do what it seems they are being "strongly encouraged" to do, I guess we will see. I think it would be pretty disruptive if it were enforced everywhere, even with a year's notice. I am getting a picture in my mind of the leaders of our district enforcing this at a camporee or other district event, but the picture is kind of murky because most of them wouldn't be allowed there to enforce it in the first place. Sorry, says the 280-pound, 5'9" district official to the 245-pound, 6'0' Scoutmaster, you have to leave because your health form says you weigh too much. My guess is that it will be awhile before this is enforced at "ordinary" Scouting activities.

I am starting to wonder about this theory that the new policy is based on the difficulty of carrying someone of a particular weight. Is it easier to carry a 230 pound person who is 6'0" than a 230 pound person who is 5'10"? (I think the answer is no, but if anyone thinks it is yes, I would be interested to hear why.) According to the chart, the 6'0" person can go on high adventure trips but the 5'10" person cannot. It seems more likely to me that the relative likelihood of health concerns for someone who is overweight for their height would be at least a partial reason for the policy. Obviously it is not a precision measurement of "fitness" but is based on averages. I have been on both sides of the "maximum line" myself, fortunately at the moment I am below the line, but as many of us know, it's not easy to stay there.

"knowledge of" and "permission to" are not the same thing. I agree. I am not even sure what "Council knowledge" is. Only a few people have authority to speak for the Council and the regulation specifically says that it is the Council executive board that must give approval. The one time I have seen "Council approval" (which wasn't even requested) was right after 9/11, when the council hooked up with some other organization (I am not sure whether it was the Red Cross or some consortium that had been thrown together on the spot) and the SE wrote a letter to all units requesting that we raise money and in-kind contributions for the relief effort. It specifically said to do so in uniform, and to do so in conjunction with popcorn sales if applicable. Our pack had this letter by 9/13, and coincidentally our popcorn show-and-sell was scheduled for Saturday 9/15. We had signs on the table saying that we would accept 9/11 donations and that we were also donating a percentage of the pack's profits from the popcorn sale to the relief effort (which probably also would have been against the rules if not for the letter from the SE.) I think we ended up giving more than $400 to the relief efforts, about half from straight donations and half from our popcorn money. It was a very hectic and confusing day because suddenly every organization in the community was out there with us, soliciting donations, while we were trying to have our little popcorn sale. Meanwhile everybody was still in shell-shock because we are within 90 minutes of New York City and many people had some personal connection, or near-connection, to what had happened. Interestingly, now that I think about it, the letter was just from the SE. I don't think it mentioned the executive board anywhere, and in all likelihood the executive board had not met in the 36 hours or so since the attacks. In that kind of extreme emergency, I don't think anyone was splitting hairs, and I imagine that the executive board probably ratified the SE's actions later, if necessary. Added note: I do agree with OGE, though. If the "council" really does "know", then there is enough "blame" to go around.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Bob, now you are misstating what I said, and it seems to me you are doing so intentionally, so I am not dealing with you on this subject anymore.

Bob, I have been a Troop Committee Member for more than five years. I never changed my account name when my son crossed over. And by the way, I have read that portion of the handbook (and I never said otherwise) and I have passed boys on this requirement. I think I know enough about it. The one word I got wrong would be relevant only in a situation where a boy tries to pass part of the requirement on his own, simply by writing in his book -- which I have never seen happen. The boys in our troop, and the adults, seem to mutually understand that the Scout needs to identify the animal, or show the evidence, to someone. I think that makes sense.

Based on the language on the form itself (quoted above by Hal), I would agree with Bob. I think "evacuated" means that the injured/ill person has left from the site of the incident (or from where someone has carried him), in a vehicle, within 30 minutes after the emergency occurs. Virtually every "regular" summer camp site would be "within range", because there is always some vehicle there to take the person to the hospital. (In other words, the vehicle does not have to be an ambulance.) However, that is not all the BSA has written about this subject. The links given earlier in this thread take you to a FAQ for this form, and here is what the FAQ says about the height/weight chart: "It is important to note that if the event will take your unit beyond a radius wherein emergency care is more than 30 minutes by ground transportation, the height/weight chart found at the bottom of Part B should be strictly followed." That seems to change the whole answer. On the form, "evacuation" must be within 30 minutes away. In the FAQ, "emergency care" must be within 30 minutes away. Of course, that raises the question of what "emergency care" is. Is it a Scout with First Aid merit badge? Is it a Scouter who happens to have an EMT certificate? (But, of course, none of his/her equipment at camp.) Probably not, in both cases. Does it mean a MICU dispatched from the nearest hospital? Or does it have to be a hospital emergency department? Since the BSA has published both the form and the FAQ, I think they need to clarify things so people will know what the rules are.

Bob, that doesn't even make sense. You are just going out of your way to be as nasty as possible. I read one word wrong. But I guess you wouldn't understand since you have never made a mistake.

Ok, so I read one word wrong, but Bob, you don't need to be so nasty about everything. I apologize to everybody who might have been misled by my misreading, but I don't apologize to you, because you don't deserve it.

BW says: What makes anyone think that the scout has to be on a scout activity to apply these skills. It's his advancement, it's his handbook. if he sees a rabbit run through his yard he should be able to get his handbook turn to page 92 and write in "rabbit". If those are the only facts, I don't think the rabbit counts as one of the 10 for the requirement. It says "identify and show evidence". Showing evidence means showing it to someone. Who did he show it to? Your next example, with the raccoon, is a good example of passing the requirement. The Scout identified and showed evidence of the animal having been there.

While I agree with BW, Neil, LisaBob etc. on where the activities for these requirements need to be fulfilled, I do wonder about the idea that a Scout (or Scouter) needs to look at other pages in the handbook in order to interpret a requirement. Those pages are there to give the Scout information to use in doing the activity called for in the requirement, but I think the requirement ought to stand on its own. If it is ambiguous, they ought to fix it. On the other hand, it never would have occurred to me that these requirements could be passed in a museum, zoo, or anywhere other than the good old outdoors. (Although the "in your community" part is interesting; I'm pretty sure that all the boys in our troop do these requirements on monthly camping trips (often more than one trip to complete the entire list of 10 animals) or at summer camp, which (with the exception of the occasional very local weekend camping trip) are not actually in our "community", but close enough I guess.) Bottom line is, it's common sense that the requirement is asking the Scout to identify and show evidence of the plants and animals in their usual places of residence, not where someone else has collected them and brought them together. And by the way, I have seen Scouts try to pass the animal requirement in the winter, including in the snow, where almost everything except us are nestled away somewhere warm. It isn't so easy, they have to think a little more and try a little harder, but that's part of the point, right?

Ed, I know that somewhere in my youth I learned a way to figure out things like that for sure. It involved p's and q's and little squiggly lines. But since that was too many years ago, the best I can say is that restriction seems to work both ways. The hike can either be used for Hiking MB or for the other MB; not both.

That doesn't translate to requirement #11 for Backpacking can't be used to fulfill #5 and/or #6 for Hiking only that these Hiking requirements can't be used for other MB's. Ed, if I am reading the footnote to the Hiking MB requirements correctly, that is exactly what it translates into. It means that you can't use a hike for both Hiking MB and another MB. If I am reading it wrong, someone please show me how, but that is what it seems to say. As for the other example that was used above, using a single public meeting for both Cit. in the Community and Communications, it seems to me that this has been discussed in this forum before, several years ago. There does seem to be a difference of opinion about it. However, there is nothing in the requirements prohibiting it, and some of the boys in our troop (including my son) have done it. It does raise an issue, is it really necessary to have very similar requirements in two different badges, especially when both are required? It might make sense to merge the two requirements, and Cit. in the Community would be the most logical place for it.

Yah, da real issue, at least as seen by those of us who talk funny from da point of view of you east-coasters, is not the person, eh? I'm all in favor of treatin' individuals with respect and dignity. (Even folks who think or speak differently. ). Nice try, Beavah, but it doesn't work. I've never said anything about how you talk. I have no idea how you talk, or where you live. What I have commented on is how you write. I know you know how to spell "the". If you are not from the New York metropolitan area, chances are that I have pronounced "the" as "da" more times in my life than you have. But I don't write that way. You obviously do what you do just to be annoying, but that's ok, if you want to be known as someone who is intentionally annoying. I also need to go back a few rounds and comment on vol_scouter's repeated comments about how "we should not allow two homosexual males from taking boys camping." I hope you realize that this can happen right now, and there isn't even a rule against it, as long as the leaders in question do not disclose their orientation. Fortunately, the BSA Youth Protection policies do not rely on what people choose to disclose or conceal about themselves. On the other hand, the policy against openly gay leaders has nothing to do with Youth Protection. They are two separate policies for two separate purposes -- one a great purpose (protection of youth), one not such a good purpose (imposition of some peoples' political values on others.) And besides, even if the policy on openly gay leaders were to be changed, the question of which leaders go on camping trips would still be up to the local unit, just as it is now.

vol_scouter says: You are right that the BSA says that the reason to ban homosexuals is that they do not fit into the traditional family structure and as such should not be a role model. Recent studies show that homosexuals have less stable relationships than heterosexuals. They are small minority. So it is not an unreasonable stance. Your first sentence, depending on how one interprets it, may be a correct description of the BSA's position. Your second sentence and what follows from it, definitely is not correct. If you can find something from the BSA that bases the policy, even in part, on the relative stability of relationships between gay and straight people, please do so, but I am sure you will not. The BSA policy is based, if you boil it down to the basics, on the idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong. It's very simple. It has nothing to do with stability of relationships, health issues or any number of other things. So, therefore, if you were someone who did not believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong, it would be difficult for you to agree with the policy. (Just to be clearr, there have been some in this forum who have seemed to believe, at least to a degree, that homosexuality is inherently wrong but who still disagree with the policy, and conversely, there have seemed to be some who do not believe homosexuality is inherently wrong but who agree with the policy, although I am not sure how someone would get to that conclusion logically.) We now treat smokers relatively badly because of the diseases that they suffer. I don't think so. I think we treat smoking badly, and justifiably so, because of the health problems it causes to both smokers and non-smokers. I don't think we treat smokers badly. Yet, society turns around and says that a male homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle despite significant health issues sustained in that community. I think to focus on "lifestyle" is incorrect. There are gay and straight people with healthy lifestyles and gay and straight people with unhealthy lifestyles. You seem to think the percentages are different, but even if they are, I don't think it matters if the question is whether we are going to exclude an entire group. If you look at certain ethnic groups, you could probably say that the members of certain ones engage in certain unhealthy behaviors in higher percentages than others, but we don't exclude members of those ethnic groups because of that. As a society, we try to get those individuals to conduct themselves in a more healthy manner. It occurs to me that this thread is probably the first time I have discussed this subject since my 2+ year hiatus from this forum. I notice that most of those who used to participate on the same general "side" as me seem to be studiously avoiding the subject. Upon reflection, this seems like a wise course of action that I should probably emulate. These discussions go nowhere -- which is not to say that those who wish to discuss the subject shouldn't, just that for me, it seems unproductive and I should probably resist the urge to waste my time further.

Yah, one man's stereotype is another man's statistical prevalence, eh? (I guess I don't need to say "Beavah says", since it is obvious who it is from the intentional and unnecessary mangling of the English language.) With respect to "one man's stereotype", etc., that's sort of my point. If an organization (at least one like the BSA) were going to base an exclusionary policy on statistics, it should only do so if there is a clear and overwhelming correlation, and not just a matter of opinion. In other words, in order to overcome the usual principle that each person is to be treated as an individual, I would set the evidentiary bar pretty high. In any event, as I said, that is not the basis for the BSA's policy anyway, although a lot of people seem to think it is. Much like da multi-partner nature of male homosexuality which is well documented. I don't know how well documented it is. In any event, if someone is openly promiscuous (to use an old-fashioned word), it seems unlikely to me that they are not going to be selected as a leader. What difference does it make whether their promiscuity is directed toward the same gender or the opposite gender? And again, let's deal with the person, not the supposed characteristics of a group.