erickelly65

My favorite signer is Pete Stark, that perfect specimen of civility and equality. A man who once called a fellow congressman a "Fruitcake".

Brilliant....you couldnt make up stuff like this!

I have to say I disagree that saying boys and girls each have unique developmental needs that are best met by positive role models of their own gender is expressly "sexist" (with all the negative, politically-correctness charged connotations I assume were implied). To realize boys and girls develop differently, at differing rates and with differing challenges, one need only be mildly observant. Equal does not mean identical.

It is generally recognized that there is a lack of positive male role model influence among boys in our society. It is further accepted that the positive influence of male role models is very important to the development of boys to become well adjusted, productive members of society. These arent the random opinions of special interest groups pedaling a particular agenda but an idea widely accepted in the main stream (the UN and the World Health Org. to name a couple)

Now, having said all that, does it mean women shouldnt be leaders in Scouting. Absolutely not. They have a great role to play and their skills and perspective should always be welcomed. We will not meet the boys needs for positive male influences by keeping women out but rather by encouraging the active participation of positive men of character in our program(s).

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2008/10/01/boys-need-the-role-model-male-teachers-can-provide-61634-21935586/

http://www.charingcrossnarrativetherapy.com/documents/nnn39RoleModel.pdf

http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1375.pdf

http://www.examiner.com/x-12193-Seattle-Public-Education-Examiner~y2009m7d5-Children-especially-boys-need-positive-male-role-models

http://www.edukey.net/2008/01/15/male-role-models-are-key-for-kids/

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/public/w2000/W2000%20Men%20and%20Boys%20E%20web.pdf

http://www.womensforum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3183:male-role-models&catid=12:single-parenting&Itemid=42

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2000/WHO_FCH_CAH_00.9.pdf

OGE,

Regarding your question about female's being good rolemodels for boys. I have the same stance as the GSA. I believe women can be good rolemodels for boys but that male role models are especially important to young boys during their developing years.

From: the GSUSA book "What We Stand For".

What is GSUSA's position on men in Girl Scouting?

The Girl Scout organization does not discriminate. Every volunteer and staff position in Girl Scouting is open to men as well as women. Because we believe that female role models are especially important to young girls during their developing years, men working directly with girls are asked to serve as part of a leadership team that includes women.

OGE,

Regarding your question about female's being good rolemodels for boys. I have the same stance as the GSA. I believe women can be good rolemodels for boys but that male role models are especially important to young boys during their developing years.

From: the GSUSA book "What We Stand For".

What is GSUSA's position on men in Girl Scouting?

The Girl Scout organization does not discriminate. Every volunteer and staff position in Girl Scouting is open to men as well as women. Because we believe that female role models are especially important to young girls during their developing years, men working directly with girls are asked to serve as part of a leadership team that includes women.

""No it won't work" just doesn't cut it as a valid argument."

I never said it wouldnt work. I simply stated cost is a challenge to uniforming.

I simply don't jump to the conclusion that someone not in proper uniform just doesnt care. This is something to be watched and evaluated on a unit by unit if not person by person basis. Its one thing to question the commitment of kid that can be in uniform but choses not to make the effort but totally different when looking at a child that can't afford a uniform.

Stosh, You're still wrong.

And you forgot that you had to walk up hill to school in the snow...both ways.

For many of my youth there is no affluent neighborhood in bike riding distance. Not that any parent in their right mind would let a kid ride his bike across Houston these days.

Some of these kids are working already to help put food on the table at home. There are people that have nothing or close to it. We are trying to put a scouting program on that will provide a little glimmer of hope and opportunity for them to stay on the right path. If they show up in an incomplete uniform, big deal in the grand sceme of things. But all you can do is make smug proclamations about their lack of commitment.

(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

I didnt say it couldnt be done. I noted what I have seen as a major challenge to getting boys in complete uniform in my district.

I think its asinie to suggest that finances arent a legitimate barrier to uniforming. We arent talking about a few percentage points of boys needing assistance. Just under 40 percent of my district lives below the poverty level with over 75% of the children in public school in this area being on the free lunch program. How are you going to buy a used uniform on ebay when you don't have a phone much less a computer and internet access. Our council can not subsidize this volumen of youth. Compounding the issue is a 20% shortfall on our council budget for this next year. Not insignificant.

Even with this, most boys in our district have some level of uniform but I would say a majority arent in full, complete and proper uniform at our events.

I stand by the statement that our uniforms are too expensive. Even beyond affordability, they are simply not a good value for the money (price vs quality). My son (12) has a full uniform and it is easily the most expesive outfit he owns. I am blessed to be able to provide these kinds of things for my family but I certainly don't look down my nose at those who can't as somehow lesser scouts.

Personally, I think the uniform is important but not nearly as important as program. I focus on keeping our activities full of boys and will worry about them being in full and proper uniform later.

Brent no I am not kidding and Stosh your dead wrong.

I serve as vice chair in a district that has a large percentage of scouts living well under the poverty level. Many of these families have trouble keeping their kids in regular clothing much less an overpriced scout uniform. As for raising money on their own, if you live in a poor community, who are you going to sell overpriced scout popcorn too? Your destitute neighbor?

My troop is much more affluent then average but, since you asked, our campouts cost our boys $10. We don't have a uniforming issue at my troop but that is not the case across the district.

Many other units in our district have trouble attending events due to cost and the monies that are available for subsidy go to allowing boys to attend program. Subsidizing uniform is something we don't have the luxury to accomplish.

Its a different world then you two "let them eat cake" types evidently have any inkling about.

Part of the problem is the uniforms are too expensive.

Polanski WAS charged with Rape, specifcially Rape by Use of Drugs (Count 4) in his original indictment along with

(Count 1) Providing a Controlled Substance to a Minor,

(Count 2) Lewd or Lacivious Act upon a Child Under Fourteen,

(Count 3) Unlawful Sexual Intercourse,

(Count 5) Perversion, and

(Count 6) Sodomy of a person.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/polanski/capolanski31977ind.html

The charge of rape and most of the others were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

Polanski WAS charged with Rape, specifcially Rape by Use of Drugs (Count 4) in his original indictment along with

(Count 1) Providing a Controlled Substance to a Minor,

(Count 2) Lewd or Lacivious Act upon a Child Under Fourteen,

(Count 3) Unlawful Sexual Intercourse,

(Count 5) Peversion, and

(Count 6) Sodomy of a person.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/polanski/capolanski31977ind.html

The charge of rape and most of the others were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Perhaps he "took the fall" on advise of Counsel. It would not be unheard of. The prosecution stance is you plead no contest or guilty and get probation but if you go to court, we are going to seek hard time for you.

(CBS) There is no statute of limitations governing the case of Roman Polanski who was arrested by Swiss police on Saturday on a 31-year-old arrest warrant.

CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom said that is because the director, now 76, had already pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl. "He already has been convicted."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/earlyshow/main5346108.shtml

Also, it isnt just about being rich or powerful. Depending on the international agreements between countries, people can get away with all kinds of crazy stuff.

Mother takes kids from US and hides in Japan and there isnt much the US courts can do about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/30/earlyshow/main5352195.shtml

The sword cuts both ways. Not just against those speaking out against faith. There are places in the world were openly practicing your faith is a dicey proposition. (i.e. China, the former Soviet Union, Nepal, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba etc.)

The word uppity's etymology indicates it came from blacks commenting on their peers.

From http://www.etymonline.com

uppity

1880, from up; originally used by blacks of other blacks felt to be too self-assertive (first recorded use is in "Uncle Remus"). The parallel British variant uppish (1678) originally meant "lavish;" the sense of "conceited, arrogant" being first recorded 1734.

I am not speaking from either side of the isle. I simply think people should behave more civily and courtousely. This should start with our elected officials, who should act in a manner fitting the honor bestowed on them by the voting public.

As a practical matter, I think it is impractical to think that berating, mocking and insulting people that are acting poorly will some how generate better behavior. To the contrary, the back and forth sniping on topics such as these is only taking our polictical process in a downward spiral.

Horizon,

I didn't read anywhere where this woman was accused of disrupting the meeting. She had her turn at the microphone and asked the question "Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?"

The question might be ridiculous but I don't see it as being disruptive. You wrote "Your rights end where others begin", I dont see how anything she said stepped on anyone elses rights.

"You don't get to shout fire in a crowded theater." - Correct

"You don't get to use racial epithets in my Troop." - A private group, you can do what ever you like.

"You don't get to scream nazi at a townhall." - Not so sure this would stand up to a legal challenge. If your disrupting the meeting maybe if your following the rules of the meeting, I wouldnt think so.

I would fundamentally disagree with you that opposing or offensive views can and should be censored at governmental events such as town hall meetings. If you as a private citizen wanted to hold a meeting to talk about a policy topic, it would be one thing for you to limit the discussion. I think it is entirely something else for an elected offical to do it at a public event. If Frank didnt want to answer the question or thought it didnt warrant an answer he could have said just that.

The test in our belief in First Amendment rights isnt in our willingness to allow speech we agree with or at least tolerate, its what we do when we hear speech that makes our blood boil.

The underlying issue is there is a great deal of change being considered regarding healthcare but not much information about what the real impacts of this change will be (both good and bad). I think the President and our Congress has done a horrible job of communicating the specifics other than to say we cant keep the status quo.

This absence of information makes people nervous and worried, contemplative of the worst possible outcome.

(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

First, Horizon, I hope you would never refer to one of your scouts, or any child for that matter, as an idiot.

Second, courtesy isnt about giving respect only to those who have "earned it" but to all. One can vigorously, disagree without the use of insult and personal attack. Behaving with courtesy does not lend legitimacy to the other persons stance only recognizes their right to freely express their opinion, how ever ridiculous. This women's absurd position could have been addressed without the sarcasm and insult Frank used.

When a congressman holds a town hall meeting...it is open to the public, all of them, and they, as elected officials should expect that they will see the spectrum: rich & poor, right & left, educated & simple, etc. They, in addition, should be willing and able to constructively deal with what they hear and are confronted with at such meetings.

What Frank did wasnt courageous and it certainly wasnt helpful. We are not going to defuse the level of vitriol in our current public debate by use of mockery.

So one only need be as polite and respectful (Courteous) as ones "opponent"..nice.

...and then there were 11 laws left.

So Gern, if I read what you are saying regarding Mr. Frank correctly, you think that it is perfectly acceptable to insult, dehumanize and marginalize people that hold a different opinion than you?

I agree with his assestment in that I believe she was out in left field but she still is his constituent. I feel it would have been better for him to have maintained a higher level of decorum. Certainly not particulary Scout like behavior on his part and therefore something not to be celebrated (at least at this site)

I think the reason you are seeing so much anger and extremism in this debate is that 1) people don't feel like they understand the real impact healthcare reform will and wont have on their future healthcare and 2) That its being shoved down their throat.

I believe what would be a better political analogy to what people feel is happening isnt Nazism, Leninism or Marxism but rather simple Authoritarianism. People feel they are having this forced upon them.(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

The comment "Being thrown under the bus" wasnt referring to denying a troop request (that hasnt formerly been made yet) but in Obama publicly questioning the wisdom of the counter-insurgency startegy the Whitehouse approved of in March and resulted in McChrystal being put in place to develop and implement a few months later (replacing McKiernan)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/pentagon-request-more-troops-afghanistan/(This message has been edited by erickelly65)(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

I thought are goal was to aprehend or kill the leadership of Al-Qaeda and remove its ability to wage terror. A tactic to achieve that goal was to remove the Taliban from power make Afganistan a country that did not harbor Al-Qaeda and its ilk.

The target is Al-Qaeda. If we need to stay in Afganistan to stop them, we should. If we can target Al-Qaeda without the large scale fit in Afganistan, we should do that.

I do find it a bit perplexing that Obama seems so quickly to be turning his back on McChrystal. He only put him in place a few months ago and did so claiming he was the right man to deliver on a new strategy needed for victory. Guess he's just another General to get thrown under the bus.

There are many organizations the have been chartered under Title 36 along with the BSA. This includes the Civil Air Patrol.

Some of these organizations do discriminate, groups such as Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, Incorporated or the Catholic War Veterans of the United States of America, Incorporated. Both have membership requirements that include practicing the Jewish and Catholic faiths respectively.

Along your line of thought Eisely, there was an opinion piece at CNN.com that comments on the long history of poor behavior in Congress - physical altercations, spitting, threats. I suppose to answer Beavah's original question. No we havent sunk so low....congress dispensed with courtesy and civility long ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/14/zelizer.joe.wilson/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Well if we follow Beavah's view, the government can save gobs of money.

We can get rid of US Customs - There is no need to man a border we want to leave wide open, just tell the last agent to leave the door unlocked.

We can get rid of our Immigration department because they won't be needed. We can follow the "If you can get here, your in!" approach.

I am all for immigration and believe we should encourage legal entry. Why is it considered so unreasonable to expect people to follow the rule of law to enter the US?