NJCubScouter

I agreed with SR540Beaver, and he focused on the same word in Beavah's latest post that I did: "Really." Where in the relevant manuals does the phrase "really learn" appear, as opposed to just "learn"? If the requirement says "tie a tautline hitch", that is what the Scout has to do. It doesn't say "tie a tautline hitch but don't forget how to do it a week later." That's where the "program" comes in -- it should provide opportunities to learn the skill and then pass the requirement, AND to continue putting it into practice after it is passed, so it is not forgotten. That's easier to do with some skills than others. But it is the way to increase the chances that the learning has been retained -- or if you prefer, the skill has "really" been learned.

Well said Stosh. I can just imagine what goes on on a Civil War forum. Or was that the War of Northern Aggression?

I think the forum needs moderators, basically for the reasons stated by WAKWIB. Or to be more precise, the forum needs to be moderated. That could be done by the site owner or by one or more designees. Since Terry evidently (and understandably) does not wish to handle it all by himself, he has appointed moderators to do the job. As for "who decides where to draw the line and how", we can start with the fact that Terry - intentionally - did not want to prescribe a long list of firm rules, but rather to deal with situations as they arise. When you have the same situation come up repeatedly, it is reasonable to come up with a rule to cover it, and that is how I see the "eponymous threads" issue. As I said early in this thread, I think the drawing of that line is well within the discretion that Terry has given to the moderators. If someone disagrees with that, they can try to persuade the moderators to change their minds, and as part of that it is reasonable to bring it up here to see what "the people" think -- not because we have a "vote", but because if enough people think the "rule" is wrong and their arguments are good enough, the moderators might be persuaded differently. That has not happened with this particular issue; to the contrary, it is my impression that there is no majority against this "rule" and probably a majority who believe that the moderators are correct (or at least, not incorrect) on the issue. And of course, as OGE suggested, if someone is ultimately not happy with the decision of the moderators, they have the option of taking it to Terry. There is at least one other potential "check" on Terry, and by extension on the moderators, and that is the option of the forum participants to "vote with their feet." If people generally became unhappy enough with the way the forum was being "managed" they could decide that it was no longer a good place to discuss Scouting, and go elsewhere. Since there are ads on this site (in fact there is a Google ad on the right side of the screen as I type this, showing a young woman wearing (well, mostly wearing) a t-shirt, which I am pretty sure Terry did not select to appear on the site), I assume that a drastic reduction in participation would eventually cost Terry money, causing him to either make a change in the way the forum is run, or shut it down. But that is just hypothetical; obviously that has NOT happened, nor do I see it happening, since most people seem satisfied with the way the moderators are running things. (I do think that at least one of the many "former posters" on this forum did leave at least in part because he did not feel the moderators were running things "his way" -- but that is one person, and somehow the forum seems to have survived his departure.) So I guess that is a long way of saying that I think that the line-drawing is being done pretty well right now, so I think the moderators can pretty much keep doing what they are doing (and not doing.) I do think there is one situation in this forum that has been going on for years where the moderators would be justified in stepping in more than they have. I will not mention the names publicly, and actually even that situation seems to have quieted down recently, to just the occasional sniping. As for the Issues and Politics forum, I think it serves a needed function of keeping the pressure off the other sub-forums when there is a contentious Scouting-related issue that people want to discuss. And it does sometimes branch out into non-Scouting-related topics, but that's ok too. There is a big sign on the Issues and Politics sub-forum that says, basically, these threads have been confined to this little walled-in area to keep them apart from the more "day-to-day" Scouting topics, so you don't have to pick through the contentious subjects to get to the discussions of neckerchiefs and merit badges and dealing with Scouts and parents, and so on. (Although there can never be a perfect division, for example some of the "Patrol Method" discussions get a little more heated than they really need to.) In other words, you have the option to read these threads or not read them, and if you don't read them there is the other 95 percent of the site to contribute to and benefit from.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Wow. Even more impressive than being a den leader for 53 years is being a den leader at age 96. In theory, one could be a den leader for 53 years at age 74, but Ms. Trapp is quite a bit past that. I just hope she has a good assistant den leader.

I don't know Italian, but through the magic of the Internet I know that "capo" is Italian for "head". It's clear enough that "caporegime" is head of the regime (or organization). For the relationship between "head" and the thing that goes on the guitar, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capo.

Under the usual circumstances, in our troop the scheduling of the BOR occurs after the SM conference has been completed, which in practical terms usually means that the BOR takes place the following week. Having recently taken over as Advancement Coordinator, I am trying to get into an every-other-week rotation for BOR's, but so far it has not worked out that way. I believe in one instance (out of 10 or so) the timing has worked out so that the BOR was held immediately after the SM conference. This was because if the BOR was not held that night, the Scout would not be recognized at the following Court of Honor but would have to wait a few months. Not that that would be a tragedy, but since we were able to work it out, that's how we did it.

John,I guess my question is, how common is it for the troops to be surveyed at all, about anything? And if they are surveyed, what kinds of things are they surveyed about? How common is it for the troops to be surveyed about specific proposed changes to military law or policy? As for "unwanted advances", is there any military law or policy that prohibits them, other than the "don't ask don't tell" policy? What if the "unwanted advance" is between members of different genders? Is there any law or policy prohibiting an "unwanted advance" by a male servicemember to a female servicemember, or the other way around? (I'm not talking about assault, I'm talking about something that stops short of that, as I assume you were when you used the phrase.)

I just recalled something that I think is relevant here. A few weeks ago I heard a statement that Senator McCain had made on this issue. It was right after the survey, or whatever it was, came out that indicated that most service-members did not think that repealing the exclusion of gay people would have an adverse impact on military readiness, or words to that effect. McCain was complaining that the survey should have asked the service-members the direct question of whether they favored a change in the policy. Through the magic of the Internet, I just found his exact quote explaining this position. Referring to service-members, he said: "I think they're mature enough to say who they want to serve with." This seemed odd to me, because it has always been my impression that in the military, you do NOT have any input in who you serve with. I'm not talking about high-ranking officers who may be able to select (or at least recommend) some of their own subordinates. I'm talking about the lower-ranking men and women. So maybe those who are serving or who have served in the military (for which, thank you, by the way), can tell us whether what McCain said has any basis in reality. The question isn't whether they are "mature" enough to "say" who they want to serve with, the real question is, are they ever actually given a say? In other words, do they have any meaningful input as to who they serve with? Because, if they generally aren't asked, it seems a little too convenient that someone who is against changing this particular policy wants to start asking them now. (This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Having no military background myself, this is an uneducated guess, but it does not seem to me that the training would be all that complicated, and a year (or more) seems a little excessive. On the other hand it has been almost 20 years since this change was first proposed, and one might argue that another year is not that big a deal. (Easy for me to say, since it doesn't affect me personally.) It may indeed take awhile for some people to get used to it, but implementing and having people get used to it are two different things. In fact, people can't really get fully used to it until after it is implemented. The desegregation of the U.S. military in the late 1940's was probably implemented very quickly, but as John-in-KC points out, it took awhile for people to get used to it. But they did, and they will this time.

Yes, OGE, although Clemenza and Tessio are specifically referred to as "caporegimes" (or "capos") rather than the more generic "lieutenant". I'd also note that although Richard Castellano (Clemenza) is no long with us, Abe Vigoda (Tessio) is still around at the age of 89 -- old, grey, but as far as I know, not an Eagle. (I know I said the joke has run its course, but as long as we're still punning here, I couldn't resist.)

Clemency for the poster, not for the threads. Nobody is being punished here. And yes, I do "get it", but I think this little joke has run its course. Either that, or I am too tired to think of some clever wordplay about Cub Scouting in New Jersey.

Speaking of pictures, this one sums up my feelings about the subject of this thread in a Scouting context: http://www.scouters.us/images/c1992.jpg I know there are larger versions of this available online, but I couldn't find one. But I think the meaning is clear.

As I said in the other thread ("show me 'da' rule" or something like that), I think the moderators have exercised reasonable and appropriate discretion on this issue and have acted within the bounds of the rules explicitly set down by Terry. If anybody here really thinks the moderators overstep their bounds, you need to check out some other forums on the Internet and see how people elsewhere generally behave once they are given a "title" and a little authority. You might especially want to check out Wikipedia, where there are hundreds of "administrators" and at least one-quarter of them running around on power trips and fighting with each other. Some of you just don't realize how good we have it here, when it comes to the moderators letting the discussions flow on their own and stepping in only when truly necessary. That is not to say that I have agreed with every single decision made here over the years, but those where I have disagreed have been few and far between, and in almost every case (or maybe every case) I thought it was a situation where "reasonable minds can differ." Never have I thought that any moderator was off on a rampage trying to enforce some radically different theory of what kinds of discussion should be allowed or not allowed. Again, that is hardly the case in many other places on the Internet.

In response to one of my comments, emb says: Haven't read the book. I have no idea what the point is about "sex education", but I think I know what the reference is about the differences between the sexes. It refers to those who want to act as if there is NO differences between boys and girls, and refuse to accept that they have difference interests and develop at different rates. Which is why we have Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Of course, we are BOTH guessing about what the guy actually means, since neither of us has read the book. The author could be going beyond the limited meaning that you suggest. Or not. I don't know, I'm just guessing. As for Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts (I guess they are Guides in some other countries), it's interesting that the BSA actually has two youth programs where female youths are not allowed and one where they are. Well, maybe three and two, counting Varsity separately on one side and the career-oriented Explorer posts on the other. If there were really a "principle" involved with separate programs, it would apply to all ages. I think having male-only Cub and Boy Scout programs really is more of a business and marketing decision and an agreement with the GSUSA not to infringe on their "core" demographic.

I would probably agree with some (not all) of what this says, but my ideological antennae are picking up a possible political agenda (and maybe a religious agenda as well.) I agree with him about No Child Left Behind, if he is talking about the over-emphasis on standardized testing that does not necessarily measure whether the child is really being educated. (In my opinion.) On the other hand the references to "sex education" and "the glorious differences between the sexes" do suggest a possible agenda. And then there's "the strict separation of the childs world from the adults," which he seems to see as a problem, and a new problem. What's that all about? I realize there is no context for this phrase, and it's probably explained in the book, but it suggests something odd to me. In my experience, the domains of adults and children seem much LESS separate than they used to be. One of the big problems I see today is that kids are not allowed to be kids anymore. Society seems to try to rush them into the world of adulthood before they are finished being children. And I am not talking about teaching kids about adult responsibilities, which is part of what the Scouting program does, and that's fine. But there IS a difference between being a child and being an adult, and I think that line has been increasingly blurred in recent years.

I agree about the web site. Hopefully this guy can do something about it. I especially love the "search" feature where the results are virtually guaranteed to have nothing to do with what you are looking for, especially when you KNOW there must be a document right on-point somewhere on the site. My suspicion is that the search feature does not actually look at the entire site, though what parts it does and doesn't look at is a mystery.

(Dreaded double post.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I love that commercial Gern. It's one of the few I don't get tired of seeing. The part where he offers him a tissue and then throws the box at him (actually, past him) is priceless. Of course I am a big R. Lee Ermey fan anyway. As for politicians crying in public, I think most of the time it is on cue, though I don't see who they are scoring points with by doing so. When I was in college I got involved in a campaign for a prominent New Jersey politician (nobody who ever made a name nationally) and a couple of days after he won the primary I went to a campaign meeting where he appeared and gave a little thank you speech to about 20 volunteers. He broke down at one point (which is a little more understandable than the situations with Boehner and McConnell, and besides it wasn't in public and there were no cameras.) Then I spoke with someone who had been at a similar meeting with the same guy the day or two before and was told he broke down at EXACTLY the same spot. I suspect that if gave the same talk 10 times he would start sniffling every time, and always in the same place. And this is a guy I admired and respected, and still do (although he is long gone from active politics.) But it's part of the business of politics, though usually not in public, but the game may be changing.

We have had snow on the ground during about three trips that I can recall, though only one where it was actually snowing during the trip. (Specifically, the blizzard hit on Sunday morning, just in time for me and my car to try to negotiate our way down the little winding road out of the camp, with no visibility, without ending up sideways in a ditch along the (invisible) side of the road. That was fun.) We have had some pretty cold ones. I think the record was 5 below -- and it had been well below freezing for more than a month, making that the one trip where we (adults and boys) walked out on a frozen lake (after getting the ranger's approval). That ice wasn't going anywhere. It didn't snow on that one though. (I had another little story there, but I decided to keep that one within the annals of troop lore.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

On Afghanistan, I seem to recall that the original reason we went in there was to "get" Al Quaeda for what they did to us, and for that reason it was a war that I supported -- somewhat reluctantly but I felt we had no other choice. However, it became clear awhile ago -- 2004, 2005, in there somewhere -- that if we wanted to actually accomplish that goal, we had to go into Pakistan, hopefully with the Pakistani government's agreement, otherwise without it. But G.W. Bush did not want to confront Pakistan, and this is yet another policy of that administration that has been continued by the current administration. Instead we are hunting "rebels" in a country (Afghanistan) that seems to be made up almost entirely of rebels of one kind or another, and trying to prop up a corrupt, election-stealing government that seems to have almost no support among the people outside of the zone of direct US/UK military control. I quite honestly don't know what I would do about Afghanistan if I were president -- I think leaving is going to make things worse, but staying probably isn't going to make things any better. But I do know what I would like to do about Pakistan -- and I am not talking about getting into a war with Pakistan. I think that if push came to shove, the Pakistani government would cooperate in our efforts to get the bad guys, or at least leave us alone to do what we need to do. (Boy, some of that didn't sound very "liberal", did it?)

Personally, I think the President's core ideology is "liberal", whatever exactly that means. (Of course I am one of those who still think that "liberal" should not be regarded as a "bad word.") But Presidents don't always get to govern according to their own personal ideology, they have to take into account the political circumstances and what the American people seem to want, on average, at that particular time. I think that right now, most people don't want ideology at all -- they just want the country's problems to be solved. I also think that there is a balance that Obama has to maintain, and that is governing a lot of his policies. Specifically, if the economy at the time of his inauguration was what it was during most of the Clinton and G.W. Bush years (good, in other words), I think the health care bill passed by Congress would have been much better (as I view it), would have included at least a "public option", and most people (not the road talk show hosts or Fox News, but most actual people) would think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I also think we might be out of either Afghanistan or Iraq or both. What I find ridiculous is all the names I hear the President being called in all the usual places, including by some people in this forum: Socialist, Marxist, etc. etc. I've known people who actually were Socialists and Marxists and President Obama isn't even close. And he has had to govern even further from those things than he would have otherwise.

Our troop does not camp during December, for the same reason given by Lisabob. Most people are just too busy and want their families together especially during the second half of the month, which is when our monthly camping trips tend to be. (There is a district first aid competition in early December but that is indoors.) It is not a matter of the cold -- and it does get pretty cold in New Jersey, especially in the "mountains" (that's what we call them anyway) in the northern part of the state which is where most of the popular campsites are. The troop does camp the rest of the "winter months" (which for these purposes include November, when it can be very cold and sometimes snowy, though not this year). January tends to be a cabin camping trip, but the February trip is usually in tents -- and in NJ at least, often February is the coldest month of all.

Above the thread list for the Issues and Politics forum is a "Disclaimer" with a link to the "rules of decorum" for the forum. Clicking that link brings you to a post from 2002 from Terry, the owner of this web site (and let's not allow the fact that he does not throw his weight around this forum to let us forget that he IS the owner of this web site, and we are his guests). That post states in pertinent part as follows" "I will enforce two rules (maybe more later, at my discretion ;-): 1. Keep the debate honest. 2. Treat each other with respect. ... basically, act Scout like." Additionally, Terry has appointed several moderators and has empowered them to enforce the rules and generally "keep order." I'm guessing that the moderators see threads (especially in Issues and Politics) that have a user's name in the title as infringing on Rule Number 2, treat each other with respect. If that is indeed their view, I agree with them. While many of the I & P threads tend to stray into personalities rather than the positions being taken, these particular threads automatically focus attention on a particular poster and almost guarantee that the thread will be about that person rather than the issue itself. They also sometimes hold a person up to ridicule, which I think was the case with the most recent example. So I think this type of thread does tend to breed disrespect for other posters and therefore falls well within the moderators' discretion in enforcing Rule Number 2.

Ok thanks Gary.

Almost lost in the discussion of allowing or prohibiting cell phones (which continues to be left up to each unit) is a fact that I find kind of disturbing, which is that National has apparently added at least one item to the Youth Protection Guidelines: A restriction on the places (and implicitly, situations) in which it is appropriate to "use any device capable of recording or transmitting visual images." I am not disturbed by the addition itself, which seems fine. What bothers me is that National does not seem to have done much (if anything) to alert us local leaders out here of this change. I did not know anything about this until I read about it in this thread. While I do not expect a personalized notice of every change made by the BSA, I often DO receive notices regarding changes in Youth Protection-related policies and materials, because I have facilitated YP training at the council and district level. When the new mandatory YP policy went into effect last summer, I think I got both email and snail-mail about it. If they have changed the guidelines, I wonder what they have done to make sure people know about it. As someone else pointed out, the G2SS does not seem to contain this information at this time. Now, I know someone(s) out there are thinking, what's the big deal? Isn't it just common sense that you don't use a camera (or cell phone or Ipod or whatever with a camera) in a place where people are not clothed? Well, one would hope so. Unfortunately there have been many instances since the introduction of camera-phones and similar devices where this common sense has not prevailed. Recently there have been some well-publicized incidents including the one at Rutgers where a young man was clandestinely filmed by his roommate and was so distressed that he took his own life. I think the BSA is correct to spell this out. But let's try to make sure us out here in the trenches are aware of it, okay?