johndaigler

Eagle309,

Sorry your wife and family and you have had to go through this. Certainly, there is no need to consider resigning but I agree being open about it is important. There shouldn't be any shame or embarassment -- if you're feeling any, please talk to someone about it: a counselor, a religious, whomever you trust.

By sharing your story, you'll help others in similar or comparable situations. Thank you.

Be well,

jd

In rereading my post above - I'm afraid some might read my vague Watergate comment to be disrespectful to Sen. Irvin. Believe me that is not my intent. Rightly or wrongly, I see him as one of the heroes of that horrific situation. Watergate on the whole, however, taught me to question authority and distrust power.

jd

BTW, vmpost, respectfully, IMHO, being stripey or purple is as minimizing as any other label, colored or otherwise. Just being VMPOST is more than enough -- it's not your color, but your ideas, that matter.

Scoutnut, Don't you think that equating talk radio and education is a huge stretch of the imagination?

Gern, we need 250 million uniters!(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Lisabob, if it's OK with you, I'd like to address some of your ideas from another thread. You consistenly demonstrate your ability to discuss ideas respectfully, I'd like to try my hand at it.

So, on that note: Here are some things that I believe as a liberal. Personally I think these beliefs fit rather well with the ideals embodied in the Boy Scout Oath and Law. If you don't think so, by all means, let's talk about it.

**I believe in standing up for freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition, both when in support of and when criticizing those in power. And just because such freedom is uncomfortable for some isn't a sufficient reason to curtail it. (A scout speaks the truth)

Would you take this faith in the 1st amendment all the way to flag burning (assuming it's your flag, etc.)? This is one of the arguments I had with my dad over the years. He just didn't separate the flag as a metaphor from the flag as a govt. symbol - in the way that I do. Don't get me wrong, I hate flag burning, but I definitely see it as a legal method of protest. I see it as a symbolic gesture not a metaphorical one.

The constitutional guarantees are vague enough, debatable enough, that I see room for argument about their limits/uses. I think the important point is to leave our ears and eyes open to the reasons behind other views.

**I believe government can be an effective instrument to reduce social ills like poverty, homelessness, lack of access to quality education and medical care, hunger, etc. (A scout is concerned about other people.)

I agree, but personal responsibility needs to come into the discussion. I'm troubled by: tax dollar support of illegal aliens; tax supported families that don't seem to act responsibly in how they use that support; welfare (etc.) recipients that don't seem to be efforting their way out of the system; with golf trips to Scotland; with the sense that there's much waste in the system and things don't really seem to have been made better (enough) by many of the programs. I know Medicare/Medicaid is the single most efficiently run health care program on the planet -- yet we're always fretting about it's financial health and it's ability to truly help those in need. Add all that up and understand my first real impression of this country's govt. involved a gentleman named Sam Irvin -- it's easy to lack trust and look for more succesful alternatives in the private sector.

**I believe that government can and should intervene in society to improve relations between majority and minority groups of all kinds, and that governments have a responsibility to also protect minority rights, not just majority rights. (A scout is a friend to all.)

IMHO, perhaps the govts' greatest historical responsibility and its greatest historical failure. "Peace Abroad" is a myth if we never find peace at home. We send billions to support foreign govts. - sometimes to help the people of foreign nations, though without any surety our $ are getting where they're intended. And here at home, we have millions living in poverty, thousands who can not read, write or count change at the grocery store. We have ignorance-based hatred of minority groups and any other group that doesn't think the way we think. We, as a nation, are the greatest contradiction on the planet. We have yet to be able to figure out how to translate "the need to win votes" into "the need to help people". Unfortunately, I would suggest and argue that the trend away from humanizing govt. and business in this nation is moving at a record high speed.

**I believe that there's an important difference between national pride, which citizens have every right to feel and express, and national arrogance, which is to be avoided, and that it is important to try to understand other viewpoints, even if one disagrees. (A scout is true to his ...nation; and, He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.)

I think it goes back to the issue above. We're realizing the pot 'o gold at the end of the American rainbow isn't bottomless. American govt. and businesses are fending off a weakening economy with practices that dehumanize our lives. Technology connects us to work, money and international affairs 24/7, but we don't have dinner with the children near as much as we used to. We live soundbite lives -- there's so little time that we skim every issue, every idea. We hear, label, and move on. There's little listening, understanding and learning. All that thinking isn't really efficient and doesn't immediately impact the quarterly earnings. Our arrogance, personal and national, IMHO, is very much a defense mechanism. We value who we are, and we don't have enough time to learn about others, so they must be of less value. AND, our methods of communicating are increasingly impersonal - fast, but not truly representative of who we might actually be face to face. Have you ever seen where someone reads an email or an electronic posting in a different light than the writer intends?

**I believe that one of the best remedies for discontent with government actions and policies is to get involved and work for change. To sit back and wait for others to do it is unacceptable. (If [a scout] thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.)

Yes, but our nature and our training tends to be collaborative and teamwork oriented. By the time we are ready to fight the good fight, we're already frustrated - and given my views above, exhausted. Our assertiveness is often taken for aggressiveness. And certainly, if we're working for change, our actions are threatening to those who succeed in the present environment. Not that we shouldn't fight the good fight, but, here in the BSA, for example, you'd advocate for working within the system for changes, let's say, to membership policies? There are plenty of Scouters who would suggest you just go start your own Program. What can we say to convince them that your version of "Obedient" isn't any less true than their version? That your threat to the status quo, isn't a threat to them?

jd

Hillis, Great thread! Thanks! Many of these ideas are appropriate or easily modified for beginning teamwork with Cubs, as well.

jd

I'd love to see the boys pull it off successfully. Fgoodwin and vmpost make good points.

Won't it be difficult to find a movie that's appropriate and entertaining for the whole age range?

Monty Python's Holy Grail still makes me laugh -- but, appropriate for 11 yr. olds???? I'm not sure.

Will you need parental permission?

Copyright permissions?

Have fun,

jd

WELCOME, bourne!

Good thoughts.

In my experience, the only way to do this is is to educate and prepare. Start by supervising and guiding. Allow apprenticeship of decisions. Occasionally allow failure but always correct. Allow them to solo when ready.

Your post makes a lot of sense; but IMHO, there's never one "only way to . . ." I think this is the key -- and probably where all the grey comes in. Each child and parent are ready for different amounts of "educate, prepare, supervising, guiding, apprenticeship, . . ." at any given point. By sharing our diverse ideas here, we (parents and children) give ourselves a chance to clarify our thinking and test out our versions. I don't imagine there are too many people (especially Scouters) who would worry you with their version of "total supervision".

I can't speak for others, but my version is knowing what my children are up to as much as possible. I'm pretty subtle about it and non-invasive, but I try to know what my sons are doing even when I'm not standing over them. I know their teachers, friends, friends' parents, etc. What I want to teach them is that whether their behaviors are "observed" or "unobserved" doesn't change the quality of those behaviors. They're respectful, safe, intelligent, kind, . . .; or they're not.

Going back to Sir Scoutalot, for example, not only does he get to test out his ideas, but he can come back two years from now - read this thread and have an entirely different perspective and experience base with which to participate. He might still call it "total supervision"; but, I'll bet, it'll look quite different.

For me, my sons are 6 and 9. My total supervision needs to look quite a bit different from parents who have BSA age children. The issues and worries aren't different - just the actors and contexts.

jd

ps>> It's not really pre-ordained that kids grow to be smarter than parents.

But both sides, especially many L's in academia and education, don't always live by this credo.

You can believe what you want, but this question has an answer that is objective and independent of whatever you believe.

The mistake here is . . .

Yah yah.

Da biggest difference between your Blue-L and the Red-C's is this repeated notion that "government" is something separate, independent, and more powerful than "neighbor."

Yah, how'd I do there, Red?

All I'm suggesting is that Beavah should speak for himself about himself. When we feel we can define others and their arguments, we stop listening. I originally gave Beavah credit for his thinking and fairness to lisabob's ideas. My point was that he is close, but he falls short of "Perhaps dat will show where we all may care about da same principles, but politely disagree." My original challenge to Beavah is still valid -- in fact, moreso now.

I don't see the humor he says he expects me to see. Anyone who's read my comments about labels, won't be surprised. What we write and what others read isn't guaranteed to be the same. There's no hypocrisy or discourtesy, just different views.

I read Rooster's response not as "I, Rooster, agree with Beavah", but as "You've done all us red C's proud with your Red flag waving." No surprise, I struggle with that. It was actually Rooster's post that sent me back to Beavah's with a more critical eye. I re-read Beavah to be less focused on giving his own ideas, and more on vaguely dismissing lisabob's points -- like a disappointed teacher does with a child. Again, I think Beavah is close, but he didn't write what he thinks - only vaguely that lisabob should see things more clearly - more intelligently - more like an adult. Re-read Beavah's post yourself. You can disagree with how I read it, but I doubt there's reason to insult me for my interpretation.

"On the other hand, your response ignores all reason, makes a baseless emotional plea, and then accuses Beavah of some how lowering the bar of debate." I'm unemotional about the whole thing. The logic and the reasoning are directly written in my other post. I didn't accuse Beavah of lowering the bar -- I was (and am) pretty confident that other label-users will do that for (to) him. What I said was: he didn't reach the bar he ostensibly set for himself - and that would, sadly, lead to "colored letter mud". I guess I'm not surprised that a few posters would misread my post and angrily (insultingly?) claim that I misread a post. Like I said, what we write and what others read isn't guaranteed to be the same.

"No need to go all Danish-embassy on me."

If this is supposed to be funny, our senses of humor differ greatly.

jd

It all goes round and round -- so now we're not even "Conservatives" or "Liberals". Now, let's chunk it even more like kindergarden -- now we're red C's, and blue L's, and pink H's, and green E's and ... perhaps we should wear our little tags pinned to our shirts to make it easy for the grownups to identify us.

Beavah, what could be a good conversation between you, lisabob and others will slowly slip into colored letter mud, because you couldn't stand on your own feet with your own ideas. You had to jump behind the giant fuzzy team mascot and stick your tongue out at her. (Yah, how'd I do there, Red?) The disappointing thing is: you were pretty close, but you just couldn't close the deal and trust yourself.

What a shame . . .

And just in case you want to think I'm just some overly snesitive blue L trying to read the above into your post -- go back and read Roosters' response.

jd

Here's a challenge for ya -- try dat again and just speak for yourself - just to lisabob. Lisa doesn't speak for other liberals -- she labeled herself "liberal" in the context of that other thread. She starts every comment with "I believe" and she doesn't comment or judge what "others" think, maybe that will work for you.

jd

Way to go BSA!!!!

Only 4 copyright owners yet to permit my last 8 songs (out of 28). This whole thing has been a bit tedious, but not really difficult. Most artists/publishers have been very supportive when they hear it's for the kids, I'm not making any money --- and the deal clincher seems to be the fact that I'm actually bothering to ask permission!!!

jd

I'm with Lisabob,

I have to be careful when I park my car - I've a tendency to be 3 feet to the right!!

Can't ever support Pittsburgh -- not that they won't win -- it'll just be another sad Superbowl Sunday for me . . .

jd

Dear jg0017,

WELCOME!

Why the search?

jd

BSAChaplain -- good luck with the ticket!!!

It's probably too far off topic for your book, but it would be nice if there was a way to bring the "Chaplainship" to Units without, and who are ignorant of the value, or choose not to have a chaplain.

How about "Unit Chaplain as Steward" >> focusing on how the Chaplain role can be future looking and increase/ensure the Unit's experience even beyond his/her tenure.

jd

Chip, I'm sure you didn't intend insult but, being a Cub Scouter, I am concerned with your last sentence. I've read and understand all the above points about the Unit Leader getting to know the boys and their names. The importance is unmistakable, but I think the CM isn't the correct comparison to the SM. In Cubs, the foremost "adult association" contact is the DL. The CM is, as Trevorum (I think) said, "a layer away".

I think it's a hard working SM that gets to know his Scouts the way a DL gets to know his Den and their families. The "quality" of the boy's Cub experience is closely tied to the relationship that develops with the DL (not the CM) - and only having ~8 boys in a Den - I'm sure you can see the "quality" of those ties is likely to be quite strong.

jd

I assume Kahuna is speaking with knowledge. If so, this is disappointing -- embarassing for SF, actually.

jd

Sir Scoutalot, my standard test for what my kids might get into without "preventative parenting" is to remember what I did, or might have done when I was their age. I gave my Mom grey hair and drove my dad completely bald!! -- And, too be honest, I was a good kid. But I was a kid, and capable of more harm to myself (and others) than I had a clue. Read any of the stats about kids, behavior and danger -- you'll end up getting brochures for safe places to lock your kids away until they're grown up!!

IMHO, we go way overboard when we consider a child's privacy, or peer reputation as more important than our goals for their safety, well-being, and journey toward responsible adulthood.

There should NEVER be anything your child does to which you don't have access. On the computer, in their bedroom, in a diary, at school, ... anything, anywhere.

It sounds like your son's computer is not in a family space -- that's the first thing, bring the actual machine to a shared venue. Just knowing that your eyes are near is a great, yet non-threatening motivator of good choices.

Any quality computer-geek friend can probably show you how to access your son's "hidden" data. You can set that machine so you have overiding passwords, historical activity checks, etc.

All that being said, part of growing up is the classic battle for independence from parents. If you don't give them some breathing room in some areas of their life, you're depriving them of chances to learn and grow. Skinned knees, high adventure, and first dates are part of that breathing room -- electric relationships with strangers somewhere on the planet don't need to be!

Here's another vote for Trust and Verify!

...If for no other reason than for your future grandchildren!! What you do about your kids' behavior is short-term -- about the actual event and affecting their immediate behavior; but also long-term -- what your kids are learning from you about parenting and adult responsibilities.

jd

I guess It's time to look elsewhere for that missing "rimshot"!!!(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

The ones who don't wear boxers are BRIEFcases!!

When you're at work, I think they're called SUITcases!

Off with their Head, er, Cases!!!

I am surprised and dismayed at SF's response to the battleship -- doesn't SF have a large historical significance to the Navy?

That being said, FScouter's words should give us a few second thoughts. . . Does this decision show a changed attitude since the last retiree was harbored in SF? Maybe a Battleship is a redundancy in SF's honoring of the Navy? Maybe the city's budget is in the red and a Battleship clogs up some income producing space? I don't know, and the city's choice DOES seem "Kooky" on its face, but maybe there's actually some thought behind their "kookiness"?? . . . ??

jd

LOL, Rooster!

...

"Illegal invaders" seems like a rather redundant minority group to me . . . though if they got driver's liscenses . . .

Leaders can wear nameplates (CSLB pg.12-9), but I can't find a prohibition against Cubs wearing nameplates. Does anyone have a reason for or against??

Peter Himmelman has also given his permission -- He's the second Scout I've met through this process. I'm getting closer!

jd

Besides Disney and BSA, I can tell my biggest issue is going to be the obscure CDs that are older music and/or compilations of older stuff. I may have to develop a work-around for those.

Ed, the Church's problem was pedophile priests, not homosexual priests.

If a Unit followed G2SS, and I knew the Leadership (a personal requirement even without homosexual Scouters involved) I WOULD let my son camp with the Unit. Heterosexuality isn't a focal point of a campout - why would I believe (worry) that homosexuality was?

You draw a picture of a "group of homosexuals" as if that's a scary thing. Very few Units would likely be overwhelmingly homosexual given population percentages. I suppose a Unit might actually develop into a predominantly homosexual group due to personal comfort levels and commonalities. I probably would not be comfortable with my son in such a Unit - because he wouldn't share the group's commonality. I wouldn't want him in an overwhelmingly LDS Unit for similar reasons.

jd

I've seen that Lisabob can stand up for her own ideas, but I didn't read her post to say that "non-liberals" Didn't defend the Constitution. I think you jumped to A Conclusion Too Far.*

*starring: ???

Hey, Trev, good post. Actually, it's not "a different perspective"- I agree with it completely. It's one of my main reasons for fighting "sound-bite knowledge" and "minimizing labels".

I'm familiar with your point - thanks (?) to over a decade of teaching, and almost as long as a school administrator. The brain loves to chunk data - it's an efficient and effective technique for categorizing and storing information: socks in one drawer; t-shirts in another. The problem, of course, is using a filing system with only big boxes. That makes it difficult for the brain to make judgements and use the information stored. The big box becomes filled with things that are less and less remotely connected, and harder and harder to extract and use appropriately -- Imagine your clothes dresser consisting of one big drawer. Sure that system would quicken filing, and help you recognize, file and judge "clothes", but prevent you from making the distinctions between: socks, T-shirts, too small, too plaid, etc. Very inefficient, very ineffective.

I'm sure I've carried the laundry metaphor too far, so let's move past it.

A label like "conservative" (especially when used by a "non-conservative") is filled with incomplete, often inaccurate information, often negatively prejudiced. It's an over-generalization that has little value when considering choices, decisions and ideas - it's a cumbersome tool. Meanwhile, considering ideas is a fairly delicate, inter-personal activity requiring complex skills like listening (reading), interpreting, respecting and evaluating.

The use of the label, and the label itself, invariably becomes the topic of the conversation rather than the ideas that generated the discussion. The labels become the least common denominator and are much easier to use and consider than actual ideas. They become uniforms (sport, not Scout) that put us on different teams - the good guys and the bad guys. They're never better than confrontational, and usually act as barriers to our own growth and learning.

I know I beat this dead horse fairly regularly, but . . .

jd

So far so good ...

Barefoot Books, Twin Sisters, and Bill Harley (Round River Records) have all given permission!!

jd