NJCubScouter

Congratulations Laurie! And how about those corporate sponsors, who are recognizing your contribution by doing something special for the boys in your unit. That's a great idea!

I think the break is now over. Someone revived one of you-know-who's threads after Marty started this thread. (Though the post that broke the ice is not "objectionable," although I disagree with some of it and the follow-up post by the same person.) One might argue that a post made 15 minutes after the end of the 48-hour period broke the ice all by itself, as it contained some "controversial" statements. But we did what Terry asked us to do, and now the Issue and Politics forum is "open" again. That doesn't mean that we should just barge forward without having learned something from the situation that caused this "break" in the first place. (And I use "break" in more than one sense, as "Issues and Politics" was "broken," and I am not referring to how the server was functioning.) I think we all owe it to ourselves, as well as our host, to consider how we should react to the type of provocation that caused this situation, so that (as we should all hope) it does not repeat itself.

I knew I had seen an extensive discussion of this subject once, and here it is: http://www.mninter.net/~blkeagle/camo.htm This is part of the "Mike Walton site" which I have seen discussed here before. Some of this page consists of Mike Walton's own opinions, but it does have part of a memo from "Mr. Williams" which I take to mean the memo that FOG refers to. The issue does NOT seem to be as simple as "military garb is not part of the BSA uniform." Jeans aren't either, but this page draws a distinction between jeans and "military and hunting-style" clothing. At district events, I have seen many, many units where few if any of the Scouts or leaders are wearing Scout pants. Most of the people not wearing Scout pants are wearing jeans. I have never seen anyone say anything about it. (Not counting in my son's troop, where the SM makes clear when it seems necessary, that Scout pants are part of the uniform, and at present there is virtually complete compliance.) However, I also have seen various elements of military and hunting-style clothing worn in situations where the uniform is generally not worn (such as weekend troop campouts), and I have seen some people wearing pants of this type at district events, and I have never seen or heard of anyone saying anything about it. Nevertheless, I have seen both adults and boys wearing camoflage clothing, sometimes

Scoutmom, my son has also read the Series of Unfortunate Events books, but I didn't know enough about them to know whether they fall into the "heroism/adventure" category. As for Artemis Fowl, my son has described those to me as being about a boy who is "sometimes good, sometimes very bad," so I left him out, too. Even Harry Potter, of course, does not always behave in an ideal manner. His ultimate intentions are always good, but he lets his fears and emotions get in the way of doing the right thing sometimes. Maybe authors these days are making more of an effort to reflect life and people as they actually are rather than some "heroic" ideal.

I'd agree that "Harry Potter" fits into the category, in a modern-day sort of way. (Actually my son is watching the first "Harry Potter" movie right now. He has read the first book more times than I can count, though once you have something completely memorized you don't have to read it anymore. (Oops, he just came over and saw me writing that.) Obviously the Tolkein books are again popular with kids today -- I would say considerably more than when I was a boy. There are other adventure-heroism books though they seem to be more of an individual taste than the mass-popularity books of the old days such as Hardy Boys (which I never read, by the way -- around age 12 or so my taste ran more to sports-hero nonfiction and fiction -- anybody else ever read the Bronc Burnett books? I still remember reading all those 30 years ago, and I don't think they were very recent when I read them.) I think we have to remember that although books are still popular, there are other forms of entertainment that are either much more accessible than "when we were young," or that we never even dreamed of. These are all competing with books. When I was a boy the idea of having a collection of movies in your home that you could watch whenever you want was sheer fantasy... and yet today my son can watch the "Star Wars" movies or a number of others and get heroism/adventure without reading a book. This might be a bad thing if he didn't also read, but he does.

Ed, I agree that from this point forward, discussions should be in new threads and not old ones. This could be accomplished either by Terry actually locking all the threads or by all of us acting as if they were all locked. I suspect the second choice would be much easier for our moderator, so that is probably preferable.

Ed, I don't know. When someone makes a statement about what they or someone else has said in the past, I think it's good that everyone has an opportunity to go back and see whether that statement is true or not, and post proof one way or the other. I've done that. I also think that when a specific situation has been the subject of four or five threads in the past, it's helpful to be able to look at the past articles and statements. (I am talking about something very specific, like the lawsuit over charitable deductions in Connecticut, or the building lease in Philadelphia, each of which have had several different threads, as different events have occurred.) Although I know you don't intend it this way, Ed, I think that to wipe out all past discussions would be like saying they had no value, and I think they did have value. It also would basically say that one person has the power to come in here, and through their sheer ability to make 10 or 20 lengthy posts a day and their willingness to say outrageous things and call other people all sorts of names, that they can cause the forum owner to wipe everything out and start over. I think it would be a mistake to give in to that sort of thing.

Oops. I hit the wrong button, and I can't edit my posts. Here is what the previous post was supposed to say, actually I might have made it better if I had a chance, but the basic idea is the same. I hate to inject a note of discord (I think it's a D-flat) into this Era of Good Feeling, but I think Terry's suggestion of a 48-hour break was reasonable, so unless he decides to extend it, I don't think anyone should feel any "obligation" to wait any longer than that. That also does not mean that anyone should feel obliged to start a new thread under Issue and Politics at 9:09:56 PM CST. I don't have any plans to do so, nor do I necessarily want to be the one to "break the ice" after that. But I don't think anyone should be made to feel that they are violating "the law of the pack" if they choose to start a thread at some point after the 48 hours have passed.

I hate to inject a note of discord (I think it's a D-flat) into this Era of Good Feeling, but I think Terry's suggestion of a 48-hour break was reasonable, so unless he decides to extend it, I don't think anyone 'd like to suggest that we stick with Terry's original suggestion of a break of no less than 48 hours from his initial post in this thread. That does not mean that anyone should feel obliged to start a new thread under Issue and Politics at 9:09:56 PM CST. I don't have any plans to do so, nor do I necessarily want to be the one to "break the ice" after that. But I don't think anyone should be made to feel that they are violating "the law of the pack" if they choose to start a thread at some point after the 48 hours have passed.

My son's troop uses the stock red-and-black BSA neckerchief. It is presented at the crossover ceremony and put on the boy by one of the Scouts who is assisting the SM at the ceremony. (For boys who come into the troop other than from a Webelos den, or who missed their crossover for whatever reason, the practice seems to be inconsistent. Sometimes they are presented with the neckerchief at the closing ceremony of their first meeting, and sometimes it is just handed to them during their first meeting with no fanfare at all. I haven't quite figured that one out yet.) I am somewhat curious about the troops who present a neckerchief to the Scout upon achieving First Class or some other milestone such as an overnighter. Is there any particular reason for this? I am not suggesting there's anything wrong with it, only that the practice of my son's troop (as well as both troops of which I was a youth member) is/was that every Scout wears the neckerchief from Day One in the troop, and I've never heard of a different custom until now. Some of the adults wear the neckerchief, others wear bolo ties. The one Scout I have seen wearing a bolo tie is the current JASM. As for how it is to be worn, there does not appear to be any particular rule. The neckerchief is worn at all times when the uniform is worn, in other words, at all times except for camping trips where the troop is camping alone. The vast majority of the boys wear the standard neckerchief slide, but this does not appear to be a rule. Actually the way I know it isn't a rule is that my son usually wears a wooden "Scout sign" slide that my father carved for him, signed and dated on the back and "presented" when my son attended summer camp for the first time. (I also have one, carved by my father from an earlier version of the same kit, dated about 25 years earlier, I think I got it at my last summer camp rather than my first.) Anyway, the SM complimented my son on the slide, so obviously there was no objection to the non-standard slide.

I've wondered about this. I know that when I was helping to run the Cub pack, we had to submit advancement reports. But now that my son is in a troop, they always seem to have a stockpile of all rank patches (except Eagle of course.) If a Scout has passed a BOR during a troop meeting, he receives his patch during the closing of that same meeting. He does not get the card until the next COH. So someone's getting the patches from somewhere...

Terry, You got it, Fearless Leader.

I feel your pain, ProudEagle. As of now, I myself am "back on the wagon" as far as responding to Wheeler's posts, and I mean permanently this time. Certain private communications have succeeded in convincing me that a post of Wheeler's from yesterday afternoon, which I had just sort of laughed off as yet another quotation of Shakespeare's oft-misinterpreted line about lawyers (which I have heard 1,000 times) was actually intended more pointedly this time, as a threat against me in particular. I have no concern that the person in question actually has the capability of carrying out such a threat, but this has definitely gone beyond the bounds of "diversion" which is one of the main reasons I participate in "Issues and Politics" as opposed to the other parts of this forum which have more practical uses. Or to say it briefly, this ain't fun anymore. So if Wheeler says something that you might think I would normally respond to, here is my blanket answer to everything: He's wrong. And, he needs help. But he won't get it, at least not voluntarily.

I have to admit, Wheeler, that you made me laugh with that one about asking a city school board president about the constitutional basis for the federal grant funds his board was applying for. I'd pay money to see what MY board's president would do with that question. Of course he didn't know. It's not his job to know. It's his job to know that the money is available and that the administrators working for his board are doing whatever they can, short of agreeing to do something that is educationally inappropriate, to get it. It's also his job to tell his public that his board is doing whatever they can, including getting federal funds to minimize the property tax burden (if that is how schools are financed in Michigan) on the city residents. (The voters, that is.) As for where the constitutional authority is, I have told you, but it doesn't fit in to your program, so you don't listen. Oh, and by the way, I want my children knowing about the whole world, not just the part of it they live in.

ProudEagle says: It would be the most transparent grab for the moderate voters in the history of presidential politics. Well, maybe since the last time there was a "fusion" ticket, which was in 1864, when the Republicans and Northern "War Democrats" temporarily united to form the Unionist Party. And they won. Of course, we're not in the middle of a Civil War at the moment, at least not officially. I think it's all moot because it isn't going to happen. Too many Democrats would freak out, and I don't see how it is going to attract many moderates, especially after some Democrats at the convention pointed out just how conservative McCain really is. The "moderate" image is just that, an image, I don't see how he's really less conservative in actual practice, than Bush is.

TwoCub, You're right. Just when there would otherwise be no reason at all for the national political media to be paying any attention to anyone other than George Bush, John Kerry and the cast of Democratic also-rans who might be considered for VP, here comes McCain, grabbing the spotlight. George Carlin once said that comedians are in the business of "Hey, dig me!" Basically, so are politicians, maybe even more so because the comedian is already on stage before he starts his act. The politician uses his act to GET on stage when by all rights it should be occupied by those who are actually running. Or, maybe there are rumors going around that suggest that Cheney may not be on the ticket after all? Perhaps some medical news is floating around that has not become public, and Cheney will step aside before the Republican convention? I have heard what seemed like sheer speculation in this direction but it did not seem to be based on anything. Maybe it is, and McCain is trying to position himself for Bush to pick him when the time comes. On the other hand, who really knows, but it's fun to guess if you're into this sort of thing, and I am.

I try to refrain from partisan political commentary in this forum, but I am copying below an AP story from today, just because it seems so nutty. Senator McCain is correct, this is never going to happen... so why there would be an article about it in the first place is beyond me. On the other hand, it's sort of amusing to see that Senator McCain doesn't seem to understand what steroids are. For all I know, they may have some mind-altering side effects in large amounts, but if I were trying to name a mind-altering substance, that is not the first one I'd think of... ______________________________________ WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain allowed a glimmer of hope Wednesday for Democrats fantasizing about a bipartisan dream team to defeat President Bush (news - web sites). McCain said he would consider the unorthodox step of running for vice president on the Democratic ticket in the unlikely event he received such an offer from the presidential candidate. "John Kerry (news - web sites) is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it." But McCain emphasized how unlikely the whole idea was. "It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk," the Arizona senator told ABC's "Good Morning America" during an interview about illegal steroid use. "They'd have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen." McCain gained a reputation as a party maverick who appeals to independent voters during his 2000 race against Bush for the Republican nomination. This year, McCain has campaigned for the president and said he would continue to do so. Unlike some other Republican senators, he hasn't railed against Kerry, a fellow Vietnam veteran. McCain called the Kerry-Bush contest "the nastiest campaign so far that we have seen" and said he preferred campaigning for candidates instead of against their opponents.

At one of these visits, my Jewish guests said that the huge percentage of homosexuals are Jewish. Oh boy. You know, it wouldn't matter to me if this were true, but for whatever it's worth, I'm pretty sure it isn't true. I've never even heard this before, and being Jewish, I've known a fair amount of Jewish people in my life. When I think back on all of the openly gay people I have known, Jews were represented in approximately the same proportion as among the non-gay people I have known. Of course, this is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, but I'll go with what I know before I believe your report from your "Jewish guests." The stereotype of the "Jewish mother" is just that, a stereotype. That means it is sometimes accurate, often exaggerated and sometimes not true at all. I think it was most accurate in the pre-war (WWI that is) immigrant generations of which my grandparents were a part, and I would say that both of my grandmothers were pretty stereotypical "Jewish mothers," but my father and all my uncles turned out to be straight (evidently.) But from my experience, you put a "Jewish mother", an "Italian mother", a "Polish mother" and (yes, Wheeler) a "Greek mother" of those generations next to each other, and if you don't try to tell the accents apart, I'd defy you to tell the difference. I grew up around all of them, and a dozen more varieties of immigrant mothers who were, quite often, overprotective of their sons and grandsons (as I know from personal experience.) But, as I said, it's an overgeneralization in all of these groups. Your ethnic and religious remarks only make you seem even more delusional and just downright nasty than was already the case.

Wheeler asks several questions, apparently of me, about a post where I mentioned my son, and concludes: These are the questions that need to be answered. Well, not by me, to you, about my son. Even though I am "anonymous" here, I sort of regret even mentioning him.

Wheeler says: Liberals do want boys and men to be completely absorbed by "Fun and adventure". This is all about effeminizing men. Then how come I keep hearing that "liberals" are too serious and have no sense of humor and just want to control everything? Can't you conservatives get your story straight? Plus, I have to tell you, when my son went on his first "whitewater" rafting trip in the Poconos last year, he had probably the most fun and adventure of his life, but I really don't think he was "effeminized" by the experience.

paedogogy, is this a word you made up? Cause it ain't in Websters. Dan, I think you'll find it without the first "a." Wheeler apparently thinks it's "cool" to use the "ae" combination (which when printed with the correct typeface symbol, has the two letters squeezed together) that is often seen in translations of Greek words. However, since we are speaking English here, I don't think the "ae" is necessary. Wheeler says: You don't know the first thing about education... Since you seem to be addressing the entire forum here, I think you have now put yourself in the same category as the former Minister of Information of Iraq (or was it the Minister of Defense, I kept getting those guys mixed up), who as the U.S. tanks were rumbling through the outskirts of Baghdad, was proudly and happily proclaiming that the Satanic American invaders had been repulsed many miles away and would never pose a threat to the capital city. Talk is cheap. I mean, do we all have to pull out our degrees and our resumes? OK, here's some of mine. (I apologize to the rest of the forum, in advance, for the following.) I've got two degrees, one at the doctoral level. How many do you have? I have taught (though not a lot), and have tried to continue learning, through reading. As a parent, I have helped guide three children through their own educational process, through various challenges and with varying degrees of success. (My daughter has made dean's list in college, three semesters out of three.) Since most of us in this forum are parents, I am sure all of them could say very much the same thing, or more, depending on the ages of their children. I also happen to serve on a local board of education, and so I attend at least three meetings a month at which education is discussed, and I helped found and once chaired an education foundation to raise and distribute money for "extras" in the school system. In all of these activities, I have basically been surrounded by teachers and have learned a lot from them about what they do, and why. So no, I guess I don't know the first thing about education...

Dan says: I know I should not do this but at least I did not say I would ignore him and than not ignore him. Yeah, now I wonder who would do a thing like that. ::Looking around innocently:: (Or, for those who have seen the movie "A Christmas Story": "Flick? Flick Who?" (As Flick is writhing around outside with his tongue stuck to the telephone pole.))

Laurie says: I have wondered if it wouldn't be a good thing to do, to learn to overcome a negative part of life and turn it around for good. As Scouters, don't we try to teach the youth we work to do this very thing? To rise above the circumstances and to learn to do more than they might even dream they could do? Absolutely, and I am sure many of us know of examples of this. A couple of weeks ago, I sat on a First Class board of review for a young man in our troop who has cerebral palsy, is wheelchair bound and has very limited use of his hands and arms. He also has extreme difficulty speaking, but it is obvious that there is a mind at work that is a match for any other boy in the troop -- it's just that some of the words take a long time to get out, and some of them never do. (It appears that he is a freshman in our local high school, which means that he is either one or two years "behind" where he would normally be, but considering his circumstances, that is rather amazing all by itself.) When we were discussing him after he was excused from the BOR, I told the other members that I thought this kid and what he has accomplished are truly inspirational, and I meant it. What he has been able to overcome, with a lot of assistance from both the adults and boys in the troop, is awe-inspiring. I remember him from Cub Scouts (he was three years ahead of my son) and it seemed at the time that he was able to communicate very little; his progress in that area alone has been phenomenal. He is 15 years old and took almost 4 years to make First Class, which to me is an indication that he was really not given any "slack" other than certain specific things that are marked "waived" in his book. (I know that there has been specific communication regarding him between the troop and the district advancement committee and I am fairly sure he has already been given until his 21st birthday, if he needs it, to make Eagle, which I think he will do. In looking at his advancement record, he is only two "partials" on Eagle-required MB's, 4 months in his position as Troop Librarian, and a few service hours from making Star. I am sure he will have a tough road after that, but he also has a lot of support.) This boy also has attended summer camp with the troop every year. (His mother, currently the troop Advancement Chair, also goes to summer camp, at least partly to assist with his care.) About 2 summers ago the troop obtained a donation of a golf cart which has been modified to accommodate his wheelchair, to get him around summer camp. When the terrain allows, he rolls off the golf cart and travels around in his wheelchair with other boys taking turns pushing him. Doing all this is a big enterprise and he attends very few weekend camping trips where the terrain is often difficult, but he does attend other weekend events such as first aid meets, service projects, Scout Sunday, etc. Laurie, like your nephew, this boy does not complain about his limitations. There have been a few times when the other boys, in their zeal for whatever the activity of the moment is, forget to take the extra time needed to fully include him, and I have heard him say something very softly like "Shouldn't I be over there with them?" But I don't take that as a complaint, I take it as an expression of desire to participate, and to have others just slow down for a second so he can be in on the activity. Anyway, there is a lot more that I could write about this young man, and what he has done and what the troop has done to help him, and maybe someday with more time I will do so. But I think you get the idea. It is a perfect example of Scouting accomplishing what Laurie is talking about.

I notice in my own life how feminism has affected me. Wheeler, I've refrained from saying this before, but you keep talking about how things in your life have affected you, so at the risk of being accused of being "un-Scoutlike," I'll say it now. You have posted before about how your mother was a feminist and how she did things that destroyed you as a man, or something like that. Maybe you should stop blaming the entire female gender, or the idea of gender equality, for what your mother did. Maybe even better yet, you should give some fresh attention to your problems with your mother and how they have gotten you to where you are now. Ideally, you may end up forgiving your mother, or perhaps concluding that it really wasn't her fault to begin with. There are people who can help you with this, but as far as I am aware, nobody in this forum is professionally qualified to fulfill that role. I think you should find someone who is.

I just re-read my last post above, and I want to apologize to everyone -- except Wheeler -- for the part about my debating abilities and experience in court. It sort of comes across as bragging, and I do try to keep my "professional credentials" out of the forum. Wheeler needed it, though.