Narraticong

John-

I guess I'm just in the dark when it comes to that darn arrow! Where, oh where, could it be?

Geekster, we have indeed been messing with you. But we all love you and we hope you love us, too!'

Ken(This message has been edited by Narraticong)

Once upon a time, we held our elected officials in high regard. Whether we agreed with them or not, we repected the office. And so did they. The President, Representatives, Senators, etc. were considered very important people and were treated with great respect. And they were expected to act appropriately.

I know times have changed and we live in a much more casual world. But is it a good thing when our president goes on talk/comedy shows? When a former majority leader goes on Dancing with the Stars? Seems I remember it started with President Nixon going on Laugh-In.

Some may say those appearances make our officials more approachable. That may be true. But have they also encouraged us to have less respect for the office?

I'm not sure either way, but I thought it might be worth discussing.

Ken

Please listen carefully to the words of "Louie, Louie" by the Kingsmen. The proper pronunciation of the admonition is found in the third verse. Clear as day.

By the way, how many native Lenape speakers are around? In all the years I lived in New Jersey, I can not think of having heard of any.

Ken

I do stand corrected. President Carter used the words "overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man" rather than "majority". I guess we can quibble over the meaning, but I think maybe I was close...

Yesterday Carter went on to speak about a radical fringe element attacking the President. He referred to some saying we should "bury Obama with Kennedy". He was likely referring to the thousands of people protesting in Washington. In the video, I saw no signs saying we should bury Obama with Kennedy. There were signs saying we should bury OBAMACARE with Kennedy. Distasteful? Sure. But a far cry from being a personal attack on Mr. Obama. There were plenty of other signs saying "Throw all the bums out", or "Re-elect Nobody". In other words, Mr. Carter wants to see this as an attack on Obama. In reality, it is something much bigger. It seems "The People" may finally be waking up and letting it be known that our of control spending will no longer be tolerated from either side of the aisle.

The Republicans should not be getting comfortable that they will make great strides in the mid-term election. If this protest continues, anyone running for office, from any party, will need to prove to be fiscally very conservative. In the end, this is not about Obama. It is about the people demanding fiscal responsibilty from their elected officials.

Ken

I have a 15 year old daughter who recently earned her Silver Award. She goes to an honors high school, and has tremendous faith in God. She is all a father can ask for in his child. I love her more than I could ever express. But I also know that every day she is one bad decision away from having her life changed forever.

Nobody says it is OK for a child to have a child. My guess is the girl would likely be the first to agree. Her life as a teenager has changed drastically. She now has new priorities. Her baby needs to be the focus of her life. We all know that and I think we agree.

But if she were my daughter, I don't think I would want to heap punishment on top of the challenges she has already been given. I would try to support her and her new family as much as possible. They would be my family, too. I would not want her to feel helpless and hopeless and alone with the burden of raising her "mistake". Instead, I would rather help her so that she and her baby might both grow up in an atmosphere of love and support.

Ken

Now we have President Carter entering the fray. According to Mr. Carter a MAJORITY of the animosity toward the Health Care Plan is due to racism and hatred of President Obama because he is an African American. Please note that Mr. Carter did not say "some" of the folks opposing the plan are racist, but a "majority" are racist.

I am afraid Mr. Carter has gone way over the edge on this one. What on earth could his basis be for making that statement. Sure, we all know there are still some people out there who make decisions based on race. But I dare say they fall on both sides of the political spectrum. I would like Mr. Carter to explain how Mr. Obama came to be elected if so many of us are racists?

Now, where is the civility in Mr. Carters statement? Will there be outrage from the liberal camp?

Ken

It seems the hacks on the left like to point out the kooks on the right and the hacks on the right like to point out the kooks on the left. The goal being to make the kooks appear to be the norm.

Both major parties play to the lowest common denominator. I believe that most people who get involved in politics do so with good intentions. But in order to get elected they must sell their soul to the devil of the political machine.

Sadly, our media go along and report this nonsense because WE like to read it. How do you think the tabloids have stayed in business?

Lisa-

As to the value of longevity in the Senate, I agree the benefit to his home state in terms of funding is great. Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens were great examples. Due to their long terms in office, they became powerful Committee Chairman. A more junior Senator could not expect success without paying homage to these grand poobahs. Thus the famous "bridge to nowhere" debacle.

Your tax money and mine is wasted on the pet projects of these key Senators while more important projects go by the wayside.

Our Constitution still stand as the greatest government document ever written. There is no need to change a thing. But we need to clean house on the legislators and judges who have made a shambles of it by twisitng words and ignoring what it clearly says. The founders intended for as much control to be left in the hands of state and local government as possible. We need to get back to those basics.

Ken

While I tend to agree with Vol in regard to leaving the business of a particular state to the residents of that state, the particular case of Mrs. Clinton is another thing.

As far as I know Mrs. Clinton had never lived in New York before deciding to run for the Senate. She found a place she could likely win from and get herself into a powerful office from which she hoped to vault to the White House. No more nor less than a stepping stone. No history with the State of New York. Pure politics with a personal agenda.

In this case, I would think she should be fair game for money from wherever it might come. Her candidacy was national in nature.

Ken

Some people are trying to do something about it. But some of these guys are so firmly entrenched that they won't leave until they die. Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond as examples. They no longer listen to their constituents, but feel they are above the people. Sheeple just keep voting the party line and keep voting for them. Opposing party doesn't waste money fighting these political machines, thus enabling them to get more powerful. Term limits are a good thing!

Question Lisa...how many times have you voted for Carl Levin?

Ken

The previous post speaks volumes. Yes, this girl will know she now has tremendous adult responsibilites. But in a sense of compassion, can't we try to help her retain something of her childhood? Girl Scouts would seem to be a perfect place for this young woman. I would hope girls who are Scouts would be a little more accepting of her. Obviously Grandma is willing to help out. If Girl Scouts can provide a few hours now and then where this new "Mom" can still be a girl, then thank God for the Girl Scouts!

I have made many mistakes in my life. I am grateful that I am not made to remember them and pay for them every minute of every day. Let her join.

Ken

Let's not forget that Mr. Obama has been calling those who oppose his health plan "liars" for some time. Indeed he did so in his speech, just before being called one himself. Oh yes, he is politically correct enough to instead refer to those who "misrepresent" his program. And he did indeed specifically refer to some of those folks being present in the chambers. If it walks like a duck... well you know what he meant.

How does Mr. Obama know whether his opponents are purposefully being deceitful- telling a lie, or merely expressing what they believe to be facts? He does not. But for political value, calling them liars is more powerful.

The speech Mr. Obama gave that night was not about the business of our country. His speech was all about "I'm the President. Don't you forget it, and you better get in line." Pure politics, nothing more, nothing less. In return, he got what he deserved. Anyone who thinks our federal government has operated with anything more than an appearance of civility for the past 40 years is sadly mistaken.

We are The People. We have elected these officials and allowed this kind of behavior. It is our fault for not setting higher expectations. Republicans and Democrats both are only giving us what we have asked for. Why are we now surprised when something like this happens? Either get off your butt and do something about it or shut up, sit down and be a sheep.

Ken

Smithgall is on the right track. Scouts today are seen as being uncool, nerdy, weenies. And to some extent that is true. When you have an adult run program where boys only do what the adults "allow" them to do, only do "dangerous" tasks when surrounded by an army of adults, that is what you get. But when you have a gang of boys who really know how to live in the outdoors, using knives, saws and axes, you may see they are proud to be Scouts.

Scouts started being "uncool" during the 70's when young people decided the same about any form of authority and anything representing traditional America. Scouting caved in and thought we could regain popularity by "urbanizing" and softening the program. In truth, we have ruined Scouting and taken away the one big draw. Self-reliance is really at the heart of what young men are looking for. They want less interference from adults. They want to make decisions for themselves. Where else but in a Patrol Method troop can they find that today?

Give them the right program and your boys will proudly wear the uniform. It will take a while, but other boys will see that too. We can gain the respect back, but we must make some real changes to do so.

Ken

Wingnut- You are right on target! Besides being dark and scary on the golf course, one of the course workes was out there adjusting sprinklers. The boys said they didn't want to get caught...or maybe they did!

Ken

I have a good friend who is a hardcore Democrat and until recently was an elected member of his local school board. So I have been carefully following his take on this via his Facebook page.

It has been very enlightening to say the least. Between his comments and the folks adding their comments, anyone questioning the speech is a moron or an idiot. We need to be dealt with harshly. How dare a school district not play the speech, but yet take federal education dollars? What are we going to do with Democrats who do not follow the state and national party line? We must stop extending our hand and instead push though our agend by any means necessary. The vitriol is thick and mean.

I can assure them that I am neither an idiot nor a moron. I am just a parent who does not trust our president. I do not trust the overwhemingly Democrat members of the NEA to conduct discussions in an unbiased manner. Show the speech during the evening and let parents watch it with their children. Then a healthy family discussion can follow.

Ken

The right tool for the job.

Our young SPL transferred in from another troop about a year and a half ago. Apparently they took the BSA line on sheath knives to heart. None allowed.

He and I got into a discussion this summer about knives, axes, and saws. Our SPL is the best Totin' Chip instructor I have seen. When I told him I have no problem with sheath knives, his jaw dropped.

It's a pretty simple thought process. If an axe is the correct tool, use it. If a saw is the correct tool, use it. If a pocket knife is the right tool, use it. If a sheath knife is the right tool, use it. If a spatula is the right tool, use it...

But if you are going to use a tool, any tool, you beter know how to use it and when it is the appropriate tool. You better know that tools and toys are very different and are not to be confused.

Teach them correctly and then as adults, set the right example.

Ken

Outstanding.

This weekend our family was staying at the campground where we are seasonal campers. The campground has a golf course attached which is just across the street. My 12 year old son and his buddy decided they wanted to go for a late night prowl with their airsoft guns. It was 9:15 and I said "Sure, but be back no later than 10:00". My wife gave me a little bit of a look, but she trusts me. I told her they would be back no later than 9:30. Like clockwork, right at 9:30 they came back. They wouldn't admit it, but a golf course is a big, dark, scary place.

But they expanded their horizons a bit. Dad trusted them and believed they were capable of taking care of themselves. And they were. Today they are a litle bit more confident for having taken a 15 minute walk in the dark.

Our kids are capable of far more than we give them credit for.

Ken

"The Right fears that the Presidents message of personal responsibility and staying in school will actually take."

Uh, I don't think so. Please let me know just which of the "changes" Mr. Obama has thus far proposed encourages personal responsibility? In reality, his entire political career is based on the premise that government needs to take care of everyone. Isn't that essentially what a traditional "community organizer" does?

Since the days our government began getting involved in "public welfare", I can not think of a program which has caused people to be more responsible for themselves. Instead, they tend to be an incredible drain on the economy and have resulted in generations of Americans who believe they are "entitled" to government handouts.

No thanks, I'm just not buying what he has to sell. Actually, I probably did buy it and now he wants to take it away and redistribute it to someone else...

It has nothing to do with THE President speaking to school children, instead it is about THIS President speaking to school children.

Ken

I have no problem with this President, or any other President addressing children. But I, like many others, did not vote for him, nor do I agree with any of his policies. My suggestion would be to have this address be in the evening when families can sit down together and watch it. Parents and children can then initiate a discussion of his message. I want my children to hear what he has to say. I want them to be exposed to all viewpoints. But as an involved parent, I reserve the right to be present when they are exposed to those messages. At noon, I am at my job and can not be there to be part of the experience. At 7 PM it becomes a great family experience in learning about how the American political process works.

At school, will there be discussion of the speech? Who will lead the discussion, and who will answer questions? I assume Mr. Obama will stress self reliance and the value of working hard in school in order to succeed in life. But who will respond when a child then asks why all of his public policies stress more reliance on government spending?

Why is it that if we choose to disagree with someone, we are branded as being hateful or paranoid and of being crazy? I don't take kindly to any of those accusations. I just plain disagree with everything he has proposed to this point. Just because he was elected does not mean I have to get in line behind him. That is why we have elections. In a few years I will have my chance to evaluate whether he has been successful. In the meantime it is my right to agree or disagree with his proposals.

And yes, he took over the most difficult job in the world. It is now fair to ask whether he was prepared and capable of doing so.

This really hits at one of my pet peeves. I've been a Scoutmaster for over two years and active in my current council for about eight years. I have done FOS presentations and serve on the council Religious Relations Committee. I am not shy, and I am at least familiar with most of the active "Scouters" in the council.

But I look at the members of our Council Committee, and I don't recognize many names. I wonder what their Scouting experience is? How many have spent a night in a tent with a unit in the past five years? Valid questions, I think, since these are the folks making decisions with OUR money.

I think one of the answers is that the volunteers need to take charge. We need to make it a point to get to know these folks and let them know what we expect. It would seem foolish today to sit back and assume they have the best interest of the boys at heart, especially if we aren't sure they know anything about the boys! Remember, the BOYS own this game. And nobody knows them better than the adult unit leaders. We owe it to the boys to make sure decisions are made in their best interest.

Ken

Way back in the '70s we closed every troop campfire by singing "On My Honor". As a Scout back then I didn't take much in life very serious. But that song always meant something to me. Today as a Scoutmaster, it means even more. Thanks so much for jogging my memory of the old days!

Ken

When I was a Scout in the '70s, our Scoutmaster was "Mac", his last name being McMahon. This was the man I respected most in the world, but I know I never once called him "Mr.". You knew if someone else called him "Mac" they most likely had been one of his Scouts.

Today the Scouts in our troop generally call me "Mr. Ken". I'm happy with that and feel more distant when they use my last name. I think the "Mr." part shows an expectation of respect, either for authority or age.

But as I think about my old Scoutmaster I wonder about the "Mr." He didn't need it because his actions and habits commanded great love and respect from the boys. I guess somewhere in my heart I wish that someday my boys will have a nickname for me!

Ken

Catholics, Lutherans, bash 'em all!

I'll never forget being in a conference of Lutheran Scouters at Philmont Training Center in 2008. In the next classroom was a conference of Catholic Scouters. Lots of bad history between those two groups, and very different thoughts on Faith. But the brotherhood between the two groups overwhelmed the differences.

We sang to each other, we laughed with each other, we shared meals. We could all agree we had a passion for Scouting and a love of God.

Sometimes I think God will just shake his head and say "None of you ever got it. I said you had to love me and love each other. But you all got lost in the details".

I think eternity shall be interesting!

Ken

Although I grew up in the Episcopal Church rather than as a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I am pretty much in agreement with the way the Missouri Synod looks at things.

Yes, worshipping with others in Scouting is a difficult thing for us. Scouts Own, inter-denominational, non-denominational style "worship" services all make me pretty uncomfortable. I would be much more comfortable worshipping with like-minded Lutherans, or just spending time with the Word on my own.

I have no need to "inflict" my beliefs on others and I don't care if other Scouts wish to "worship" together. I just ask that they understand my reasons for not taking part.

I wonder what this will mean for the National Lutheran Association on Scouting. Made up of ELCA and Missouri Synod Lutherans, our group has managed to get along and work through our differences for the greater good of Scouting. But I think this may be a major sticking point for those of us among the membership who belong to the more conservative Missouri Synod. Should be interesting to see what comes of it.

Ken