IowaBill

The fact is, there are over 1,400 separate United Ways in the country. Only about 20 of them don't give to the Scouts. Painting the United Way, a decetralized locally goverened charity (unlike the Scouts) with a broad brush is similar to painting all conservatives or liberals or for that matter, muslims with a broad brush. As a long time reader, but admittedly infrequent poster here, I see where that seems to the MO of many posters here. As a result, no real suprises in your post.

It's more than the second line of the Scout pledge. A Scout participant must state or swear an allegiance to a higher power. This goes for the kids and the adult volunteers as well. They can be dismissed should they fail to state this allegiance publicly. I have worked with the Scouts professionally (note I said with, not for the Scouts) and I can state that overall they are a good group that does a lot of good for kids and the community. They just don't want to be told what to do regarding their discriminitory activities. While this will most likely get them more support in the short run from ardent believers in Scouting, it will probably harm them in the long run, and I would be willing to bet they will change or at least soften their stance on these issues. Scouting is a business with more than 1 billion dollars in revenue, it employs thousands of people and serves millions. Please don't take my statements as a slam against Scouting. I is just that their attitudes will eventually prevent them from serving the community as well as they could.

It is not "optional". You are not allowed to be a scout leader without professing a belief in a higher power. Granted, the BSA doesn't insist you declare an allegiance to the monotheistic christian God, but atheism or agnosticism is NOT an option. In addition, a scout candidate for any of thier levels of Boy Scouting, Tenderfoot and on up must do the same. Do they "pound religion" down peoles throats??, absolutely not. Nor is it optional. One might argue that because they do not insist on any particluar "God", it is therefore not a big deal. I would caution against that thinking in that it could represent what others refer to here as the "slippery slope". not in this thread of course, but in others. I personally don't think it is a big deal. I have, however, worked professionaly with the BSA for the past 13 years, albeit indirectly as opposed to directly. I don't actually think it is a big deal professionaly either, they have far bigger issues to deal with. It is not, and most likely will never be "optional".

A number of places have not allowed the SA to solicit donations in front of their entrances for some time. I believe Wal Mart leaves the decision to its local managers. I do want to give a bit of input, having worked closely with a number of SA's over the years on a professional level. Nationaly, and internationaly as well, the SA has seen declining revenues from their kettle program. This is probably due to a number of things, not the least of which is ever increasing competition for the charitable dollar, and more sophisticated fund raising techniques on the part of the SA's competitors. Competitors which include your own church, your alma maters, and other local, regional, national, and international charities. In addition, the SA has had an extraordinarily difficult time recruiting volunteers for this task over the past decade or so. Many of the bell ringers you see are in fact paid tenporary employees. Couple that with declining revenues, and you will find that most SA bell ringing stations net less than 15 dollars per hour. Both Kohls and Target are extremely generous companies as regards their community support. They also have some fairly high standards as regards the charities they support, not the least of which is a measurable return on donated dollars. Not a return measured in terms of units of service, rather a return measured in terms of a lasting impact on the people or community the charity serves. I do not suppose to speak for either corporation (Kohls or Target), but I can tell you it is possible that the SA was unable or unwilling to meet certain standards these companies have regarding the above. Before anyone freaks out and tells me that donated dollars do not come from the companies, they come from individuals; allowing a charity, or any organization for that matter, to directly solicit customers is a huge in kind contribution, and clearly it is one that these companies are putting some serious thought into. Just my two cents.

I don't agree with what the people that NASCAR have done with DE, Jr. I do think they are bit hyper sensitive as regards their public image. They have done a remarkable job increasing and diversifying their fan base from the a mere 15 years ago. They want their to portray a public image far removed from what many people see from other pro's, the drug using, wife abusing, money grubbing, flashy, blah, blah, blah. The image of NASCAR drivers is one of the few things they have to sell, and they feel it must be maintained at all costs. An easy parrallel is when Jake Plummer was fined for displaying #40 on his helmet in honor of Pat Tillman. The NFL relies on the sale of memorabilia (jerseys, shirts, hats, etc, etc) for big bux, that is why they have such strict rules regarding the uniforms appearance and why it can never be altered. Obviosuly once or twice (like the Plummer case) won't matter, but any student of marketing will tell you consistent apperance is a huge thing in developing a brand. In the DE case it is the same thing, just substitute behavior for appearance. Having said all that, I agree with Richio (never thought I'd be saying that). given thier new "chase to the cup", this penalty is just plain stupid. Still, it is their (the France's) playground and they set the rules. Bench Bledsoe (why not??)

AD, I am sure there is nothing in the constitution regarding Child Welfare services, and yes DCT, you're right, it is typically the responsibility of the state. It is frequnetly carried out, however, by local government. Local government that relies on a number of revenue sources to carry out such services. Revenue sources that include local taxes (property, local sales tax share), state taxes (primarily income, but other sources as well such as user fees and mandated surcharges) and federal dollars (almost entirely income taxes). So while the constitution doesn't mandate child welfare programs, federal tax levies certainly play a role in the ability for those services to be properly provided. I don't think then answer is to give them more money, but I am equally sure that cutting funds to such services is a bad idea, whether they are constitutionally mandeted or not, whether the state is reposnisble for them or not. Probably the dollars being spent could be done more effectively. Like it or not, all level of government has a role in such services, and I would agree with Pasta Joe I would rather see more dollars to services like this than fighting resistance to a misguided occupation in the middle east.

Glass Joe! Piston Hurricane! Bald Bull! Kid Quick! Petesa Pasta! I never made it any further and frequently got KO'd by Bald Bull

A the tender age of 19, a 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix, model SJ. 428 Cubic inches, and a four speed. Holy $4!t. On one occaision and friend and I tried to "bury" the 150 MPH speedo. We backed down at slighlty over 140 mph. Lucky to be alove. A 1984 Dodge Colt Turbo, a car with all the sophistication of a motorcycle with fouir wheels, incredibly fast, incredibly noisy, incredibly uncomfortable., finally a 1989 Saab 900 turbo, the polar opposite of the Colt, but just as fast. I am lucky to be alive, I now drive a Taurus (wtf!!!).

We just got through one the coldest Augusts in history out here on the prarie. Must be that damn global warming I hear so much about.