NJCubScouter

Yeah yeah, Brent, I know, everybody's biased against your guy. I noticed that Sarah Palin even worked the talking point about the "mainstream media" into the debate.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I have to mostly agree with BobWhite's post of 9:44:57. Highcountry, it seems to me that your biggest issue is not who advances to what and when. Your biggest issue is that your troop seems to need an armed NATO peacekeeping force to restore order. Or, failing that, it needs the SM and troop committee to take action to protect the boys who belong in the troop from those who don't. The next time I am at a troop or committee meeting and become frustrated at some crazy situation or irritating person in our troop, I will think back to this thread and thank the Great Master of all Scouts that we do not have any boys whose weekly schedule includes a visit with a parole officer. Thanks for that, anyway.

"Advantage" based on what, Brent? The "expectations" game is just spin. The question is, how did the debate affect, if at all, how people are going to actually vote? The "snap" polls and less scientific measures suggest that more undecideds were swayed in the direction of Obama than in the direction of McCain by the v.p. debate. However, the effect is really like a raindrop in a tidal wave moving in the same direction, which is due to the economic situation. The polls (both popular and electoral votes) were moving in Obama's direction anyway, and when the "real" polls come out over the next few days, we will see whether things are still moving that way. As I say, if they do it is not because of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, but more because of unemployment, gas prices, credit crunches, foreclosures, bank takeovers, etc., and more importantly, fear of more of the same. The best comment I heard on tv last night after the debate was that the failure of either candidate to decisively "win" or "lose" the v.p. debate means that the focus will now come off Palin and onto the presidential candidates and the issues, where it belongs. I agree completely. It is difficult for me to imagine anyone deciding how to vote in this election based primarily on whether they prefer Biden or Palin. That's not where, as we used to say in the 60's, the action is. (Ok, I was a little too young to say that, but other people said it.)

BobWhite says: Saying that you volunteer in the BSA as part of a bio is a far cry from speaking on a political issue using your title and position in the BSA as your position of authority. I know it's a far cry. That's what I suggested (perhaps too gently) almost at the beginning of this thread. I agree that what the guy did in California seems inappropriate. What I was asking (based on your post, which I thought was somewhat ambiguous) was whether the "hypothetical" situation that I described was also inappropriate. One thing can be a far cry from another thing and both still be inappropriate (or appropriate.) In this case I think one (the California guy) is inappropriate and other (me, let's say) was acceptable, at least. I was asking whether you disagree.

Bob, was that addressed to me? If so, as I said, I don't choose to wear a patrol patch. I just don't see a need to bother those who do. I have said something about such things as a 50-something man wearing a youth Eagle patch. Some things are more important than others.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

In our troop, when the SM conference is completed, the SM will advise the Scout to ask the Advancement Chair, or in his absence, the past AC (who is still on the advancement committee and is sort of transitioning out) to schedule a BOR. One of these two committee members is present virtually every week so there is generally no delay. There may be occasions (probably for the 10 and 11 y.o. Scouts) where the SM may just tell the AC himself. The Scout is almost always offered an appointment the following week. I have seen boys offered a BOR on the spot after the SM conference is completed, especially in unusual cases such as an imminent deadline for an advancement report before a COH. (I am sure the same would happen for a Scout who is in danger of timing out on Eagle if he does not get a Life, Star or First Class BOR right away, although I have never seen a case where that was needed.) I do like Twocubdad's troop's approach of using a BOR request form, as it seems like a good communications tool that can help avoid errors and delays, but the way we do it, it isn't really necessary. Admittedly, our approach is dependent on the fact that we almost always have at least three committee members (including the AC and/or past AC) sitting around and chatting, doing "homework" or whatever in the adult room during troop meetings, so communications and scheduling are not really an issue. Troops that are not that fortunate would need to do it a different way.

I agree with Eamonn and Acco here. Inappropriate though it may be, wearing an Old Goat Patrol patch is not a big deal. My troop gives them out and most of the adults do wear them. I have never chosen to do so, perhaps on the logic that people can tell from looking at me, and/or the position patch on my uniform shirt, that I am an adult rather than a Scout. They don't need to see a picture of an Old Goat on my shoulder rather than a Cobra, Hawk or Whatever to tell what "group" I belong to within the troop. Having said that, I don't object to anyone else wearing the Old Goat patch. It is not a formal thing, it is just a way for the adults to poke fun at themselves and maybe build a little camaraderie among the adults and with the kids. Maybe not. Who cares? I have been to many district events and have never seen anyone question another adult for wearing such a patch. If the CR of my troop were to ask or direct that such patches not be worn (unlikely since, among other things, I'm pretty sure the CR's spouse wears an Old Goat patch), and my fellow adult leaders were ready to man the barricades and pour down the boiling oil over this, my advice to them would be: "Please, just take off the patch."

As I recall, my Scout shop had the knots for Arrow of Light and Eagle in an open bin (though I only qualified for the first one). I took an AOL knot up to the counter and asked if I needed to wait until I could bring in my card from 196_ (which I do have), and the clerk said no, the Eagle knot requires proof but the Arrow of Light does not. I suspect this varies by council, although it shouldn't. On a related note, I have also seen other patches in bins that one would not necessarily expect to see sitting out in the open -- including, on at least one occasion, Scout Executive! One would think there would be a fairly limited valid demand for that one. I would hope they would require proof for the SE patch, as well as others I've seen, including all kinds of commissioner and other council and district level positions. Since I have never held such a position, I have never had occasion to put the "security measures" to the test.

vol_scouter says: Governor Palin did as ALL politicians and altered some questions to answer what she wished to answer. As I said before, she did it far more than any candidate I have ever seen, and I have watched every presidential and v.p. debate since they started in 1976. When she said that she was not going to answer a particular question, it was because the moderator had asked her a different question than had been asked to Biden. Here is a link to the transcript of the debate, please cut and paste exactly what you are talking about: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html The rules of the debate were violated by Ifill who stnad to profit by a Obama win and who on mic congratulated Biden on a good job. This nonsense about the moderator's book, raised on right-wing web sites a day or two before the debate, is ridiculous. I don't see how anybody could say that the moderator wasn't totally objective. She was tough on both candidates, though not too tough on either, and not nearly as tough as Jim Lehrer was in the first Obama-McCain debate. Palin is lucky he wasn't the moderator this time. Governor Palin merely wished to answer the question Biden had answered and not a different one. Again, please prove this, if it's true. Did you notice Biden reading from his notes prior to answering a question but seldom in the followup questions? Why would he reference his notes then and not on followups? I didn't notice. What are you implying?

It is improper for a volunteer to use the name of scouting to support politial issues or a specific party or candidate. Including himself? Meaning, is it really "improper" for a candidate to put in his own campaign bio that he is a Scouter, including position and unit? Or, for example, that he is certified by the BSA as a Youth Protection facilitator? (Just as a random hypothetical, of course.) If this is the case, I'd really (really) like to know exactly where it says that. The reason for my great personal interest in this is mentioned above. Plus, other people do this all the time, and I see nothing wrong with including this type of factual information about yourself in your own campaign bio.

...and so on and so on and scooby-dooby-dooby-do. Everyday People, Sly and the Family Stone, 1968. Or is that too far off-topic? And by the way, I think there is an extra "dooby" in there... brother.

I like Rooster's second option as well, although I don't think the BSA would go for either option. The first would be seen (by the BSA and by me) as too restrictive, as it would exclude some who do believe in a "higher power" (even without considering the silly "a rock" or "a tree" or "sugar-laden breakfast cereal" theology.) The second would be seen (but not by me) as too inclusive, see the 2002 resolution by the BSA executive board (or whoever) in which they said the "belief" requirement is "not merely aspirational" or something like that. It also seems to me that if the word "behind" were replaced with "beyond" it might come closer to acceptance by the BSA (as it would exclude those who say "There definitely is no higher power.") With either of those words, option 2 literally invites agnostics into the tent, whereas their status is somewhat vague at the moment. Even the "beyond" version might allow some varieties of "atheist", that is, those who have an open mind on the subject. I'd vote for it. Added note: I just saw Rooster's latest message and it confirms what I have said above about the word "behind." I think the meaning of that word in Rooster's option 2 is the key to whether Rooster and Merlyn agree (to use a shorthand that will have meaning to readers of this forum.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

It was interesting to see that the moderator of this debate did not have the candidates interact directly with each other and ask each other questions, as the moderator of the first Obama-McCain debate did. I suspect that the Republican campaign (or maybe both campaigns, but I doubt it) made it clear to the debate commission that they did not want that happening in last night's debate. I can understand why. As others have said, Palin was totally on-script and well-rehearsed. She ignored questions she didn't want to answer and turned them into the questions she was prepared to answer. Now, in fairness, Biden did the same thing on occasion, Obama and McCain each did it a couple times, and probably it has happened on both sides in almost every presidential/vice presidential debate I have ever seen. However, I have never seen a candidate do it anywhere near as often, or as blatantly, as Palin did. She even made a little issue out of it, when she told the moderator something like, I am not going to answer the questions that you want to hear. In other words, she was going to answer the questions that she wanted to answer, not the questions that were asked. In the end, the debates on their own are not important; it all gets thrown into the mix of how people decide who to vote for. While Palin appealed to the "Republican base" (and no doubt quieted the murmurings of some conservative pundits that maybe she needed to be replaced on the ticket), I cannot imagine that she won over many undecided voters, while I think Biden may have. The "insta-polls" do suggest that more people think Biden won the debate than Palin. Having said that, I was somewhat disappointed in Biden, as some of his answers did ramble around a little bit, and a couple times he tried to cram too much information into an answer and then didn't say things as directly as he should have, so I kind of needed a scorecard to figure out where he was going. And by the way, I did catch one "gaffe" that Biden made, or at least if the Republicans picked up on it, they would make a big deal out of it. I just read the transcript online, and he did say what I thought he said. However, I have not heard about it as an "issue", so I think I will wait until I do, or until the election (whichever comes first) before saying what it is. The Internet is watching.

So, Rooster, just out of curiosity, what do you think the policy should be?

There is a discussion of this at: http://www.mninter.net/~blkeagle/usflag.htm. The bottom line is, there is no "rule" that says which way the flag goes on a uniform. The military has it go one way, the BSA has it go the other way. It's no big deal.

Hmmm. There is nothing wrong with a candidate for public office listing his/her Scouting activities along with other community activities, on a resume to be used in an election campaign. As I have said, I did it myself when I ran for office. (Some here will be relieved to hear that I no longer hold office, as my electoral record is 1-1.) Everybody (especially those running for local office) lists that they are a soccer coach, or a PTO president, or a Scout leader, there's no difference. The candidate is not claiming the support of Scouting for his/her candidacy, but rather is saying how they have been active in the community. However, it seems kind of strange to me that someone who is not running for office, like this commissioner, would identify their Scouting position in connection with their position on a public issue. What relevance does it have to the issue that this person is a commissioner? I don't see the justification for mentioning it.

Skeptic, I was not saying I thought the BSA would have a problem with the idea that "God is in us", in general. The problem would be with the idea that "God is only in us." The first concept is compatible, and indeed part of, many religions including Christianity and Judaism. The second concept excludes a "higher power" (meaning, higher than us) and therefore is probably not ok with the BSA. As I said, I think this would be different than a religion or belief system that says something like "God is in the Universe" or "God is in nature" (or, God is the Universe or God is nature), as in each of those cases, there is a belief in a "higher power", amorphous and impersonal though it may be.

Skeptic, you raise an interesting issue, as to whether a belief that "God is in all of us" (and nowhere else) would qualify as a belief in a "higher power" in the BSA's view. It might not, as it would basically mean that we human beings are the "higher power", or at least that we are "tied" with other things for being the "higher power". I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this belief, just that I question whether it would satisfy the BSA's "religion requirement".

I hate it when I leave out the word "not", it tends to have an unintended impact on the meaning of a sentence. The last sentence of my post should read: It also makes me wonder what else (if anything) you may not have confidence in the SM's ability to handle, and what (if anything) you might want to do about it.

I was ready to endorse BobWhite's suggestion of continued communication, education, counseling, etc., until I went back and re-read the thread and focused on this by crv-66: We've had several instances in the past where, as a scout, he had behavior problems, the SM saw it or was aware of it, and did not always take action. With that history, I don't have confidence he would take corrective action in the future with him as ASM. I think that's the deciding vote, so to speak. If you as CC do not have confidence in the SM's ability to handle this sensitive and difficult situation correctly, you should not put him in the position of having to handle it. It also makes me wonder what else (if anything) you may have confidence in the SM's ability to handle, and what (if anything) you might want to do about it.

I've always thought that the "a tree, rock or stream" language was a poor choice of words. I wonder whether anyone actually told the BSA they believe in a "a tree, rock or stream" or if the BSA selected that as a seemingly ridiculous example to show just how far they were willing to be tolerant. A better example might be something that a lot of people actually believe, for example, that "nature" (or, if you will, all the rocks and trees and streams and animals and everything) are equivalent to God; or that "God is found in everything"; or many other types of belief in a non-anthropomorphized deity. Many people in the world, and in this country, believe some version of this, including some Native Americans, some Wiccans, deists, etc. Why not use those as the examples of what it's ok to believe within the BSA? They have the advantage of not sounding ridiculous, and being actually believed in by substantial numbers of people. I suspect that these beliefs might not attract the respect of some on this forum, but they are ok with the BSA. (Hey, that rhymes!) (In previewing this message, I realized that Wikipedia markup, which I have become more used to, does not work in this forum!)

Docrwm, are you saying that one who believes in deism does not meet the membership requirements of the BSA? If so, I disagree. In deism there is still a "higher power", and even though it may not be recognizable as such to the organized religions, it is still a higher power. That is all that the BSA requires.

I also have made up my mind on who to vote for, and I think the candidate I am voting for did better in the debate. I suspect that most of those who have decided to vote for the other candidate think that their candidate did better. In fact, the day after the debate one of the tv news channels reported on a poll in which they asked those favoring one of the candidates who they thought won, and the people who went into the debate and thought their candidate won outnumbered those who thought their candidate lost, something like 60-70 percent to 2 percent, in each case. What a surprise. For that reason, it would be interesting to hear from those in this forum who can truly say that they went into the debate undecided (remember, a Scout is trustworthy) and see who they thought won, or at least what they thought each candidates' strengths and weaknesses were. Another interesting group would those who went into the debate favoring one candidate but thought the other candidate did better, or that the two did equally well. What do they think? I'd find that interesting; on the other hand, if the discussion turns into "my candidate is better than your candidate" (as several threads in this forum have already done) it is not very productive or interesting, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I will give a few brief thoughts. The main thrust of McCain's criticism of Obama (and of Hillary Clinton's criticism of Obama during the primaries) is that Obama is "not ready to lead", especially in the areas of foreign and defense policy. Those subjects were what Friday's debate was supposedly about, although the moderator understandably chose to focus on the economic situation for the first half hour or so. Despite some of the "spin" I heard after the debate, I think that in order for McCain to "win", the viewers had to come away convinced that Obama is "not ready." I didn't see that. He sounded "ready" to me, and quite frankly, I thought he stayed with McCain on foreign and defense policy every step of the way. I also thought that all the focusing on who a president should or shouldn't meet with was kind of silly, and that the average undecided voter isn't really going to care about that. In fact, that point kind of descended into low comedy for me, when the issue (admittedly raised by Obama) became what Henry Kissinger thinks. Henry Kissinger? You've got to be kidding me. And when McCain said he's known Kissinger for 35 years, I don't think he really helped himself very much. Did McCain hang out with Richard Nixon, too? I can only hope that this sort of thing is not what people are basing their decisions on, and I don't think it is. The point is, you had two candidates who sounded like they knew what they were talking about, presenting two somewhat (though not extremely) different views of the world and our place in it. I have to think that is not what McCain was hoping for. I also have to agree with those who say that McCain's condescending tone probably didn't help him. It is not a question of whether he was "polite" enough, it is really a question of, did he turn off some people who want to vote for someone they "like". I think it is possible that he did. I also think that Obama's point that the war in Iraq took the focus off the war in Afghanistan and tracking down the remnants of al Quaeda, probably struck a chord with a number of viewers, as it does with me. But, again, what did the "undecideds" and the "leaners" think?

Da role of the 4th estate is to inform the public on matters of public interest, like the nature of the crisis and the details of the bailout proposal and da risks and benefits of those. Not to be People Magazine paparazzi tryin' to catch snapshots of interpersonal drama. Hate to tell you this, Beavah, but in our "capitalist" system the role of the Fourth Estate is to create a product that generates viewership/readership numbers that are then used to generate advertising revenues, which is what produces most of the profits for the shareholders of the media companies. That is why a large percentage of the "news" is People-magazine-type celebrity style garbage, or Hannity arguing with Colmes, or O'Reilly bloviating, or Geraldo clowning around. They figure out what people (meaning, must of us out here in the country) want to see, and they give it to us. You and me and probably most people on this forum are in the minority, because we actually want to know the important stuff that is going on, and why. We are not where the big numbers are -- the big numbers are in the drivel that makes up much of the news. Now, I believe that most journalists are in the business because they actually want to tell people the important stuff that is going on, and why. But that is not necessarily what they are getting paid to do. Any real news that gets produced, especially by the big media companies, is just an accidental byproduct of the system. I just read what I wrote, and gosh, have I really become that cynical in my old age?? Maybe not quite that bad, but I'm getting there. Unfortunately, I think that what I have written is fundamentally correct.

John McCain has made his share of gaffes as well. During the primaries he was discussing the political situation in Iraq and mixed up the Shi'ites and the Sunnis, which a lot of people have trouble with, but if you are standing on a national stage discussing a situation, you ought to know what you're talking about. I'm sure I could find others if I looked (and I won't even mention the fact that he didn't know how many houses he owns.) I suppose it's up to every individual voter to decide whether it's more important for a presidential candidate to know critical facts regarding a war we are currently involved in, or for a vice president to know who was President in 1929. (Personally I'd prefer that everybody get everything right, but you can't have everything.) Or, the voters could decide to focus on the candidates' actual positions on the issues. But I know that's crazy talk.