NJCubScouter

Rooster, maybe the ratings are really being controlled by the "liberal media elite." Heh heh heh.

Bob, notice that I included in "they" not only those who prepared the brochure but those who "approved" it as well. Even if the people you list don't have the slightest idea, I hope it is being reviewed and approved by SOMEONE who DOES have the slightest idea. This is not some routine fund-raising letter or a monthly district newsletter for Scouters. In the five years I have been the parent of a Cub/Boy Scout, this is the first time I have gotten a mailing like this, on this subject. It is a somewhat "fancy," somewhat glossy thing on what I think is called "card stock" (or close to it), with two different color backgrounds (though the photos are monochrome.) It was apparently bulk-mailed to the parents of all 20,000 Scouts in the council (not just Scouters as I had originally thought; the address is "To the parents of...") I don't know how much all this printing and mailing costs, but it has to be in the thousands. Isn't that important enough for the SE, if nobody else, to take a few minutes to look at it and make sure it doesn't have anything in it that will make the council look careless and amateurish? You know, the young woman wearing a position patch on her pocket really is NOT a big deal, but your attitude seems to be that it's ok to take a bunch of pictures and stick them in a brochure, without someone in authority and with knowlege, making sure that they properly depict what they are supposed to depict. I don't agree with that. This young woman is not simply someone who got her picture taken; someone decided to use her image (including her uniform) as a symbol of youth in the council. If there were a finger of "blame" to be pointed (and this case does seem a bit trivial to do so), I would point it up the chain of command, not down at a 17-year-old girl who was so excited to be on the Executive Committee that she may have put a patch in the wrong place.

Bob said: It is likely she is a member of the council executive board. Like the national council, most local councils have youth representatives on the executive board. OK, well now I learned something. I thought it was an exclusively adult position. After reading this I went searching on the Internet and found references to each council having two youth representatives, and some councils in which the OA Lodge Chief and/or council Venturing Youth President (a position I did not know existed) also serve as one or both of these Executive Board members. It sounds like a good opportunity and experience for an older youth member, and a good chance for the adults to hear what the youth or thinking. The patch is probably in as accurate a position as she is able to do in her field uniform. While I don't consider myself a member of the "uniform police", I always thought that patch placements were either correct or incorrect. I didn't realize there was a third category, "as accurate as she/he is able to do." In this case, by that logic, it would mean that every Scouter who holds a position at both the unit and council/levels (of which there are obviously many) should wear one of their position patches on their left pocket, since there is only room for one on the sleeve. I have never seen a Scouter do so. Obviously, many have two or more shirts, though I have seen a few who (using various methods of attachment) temporarily place one position patch over the one that is sown on to the shirt. I suppose that would represent yet another point on the spectrum between correct and incorrect. (I said) "I think the only answer to the second question is, they made a mistake." I do not understand who you are suggesting "they" are or what role "they" played in sewing patches onto other peoples uniforms? I didn't say anybody sewed a patch onto anyone else's uniform. "They" would be the person(s) who prepared that part of the brochure and/or approved it for publication. If the patch placement was incorrect, their mistake would be in choosing to print a picture of someone with an incorrect patch placement. If the patch placement was correct, then there is no mistake. If there is a recognized third category for "as accurate as she/he is able to do," as you suggest, well, then, I don't know. Maybe the "test" would be in how many Scouters looked at the brochure and said, Hey, that's wrong.

I wasn't sure whether to approach this as a "uniforming" question, a comment about an error in a council publication, or as a Venturing question, so I'm posting it here. I guess the Venturing way to ask the question would be: Can a Venturing youth member be a member of the Council Executive Board? Here is why I ask. Over the weekend I received, at home, a brochure from my council, which apparently is directed at Scouters. It is basically about how important the council is, the programs and services the council provides, and about the council's need for financial support. The message is, support your council by selling popcorn, going to council camps, FOS and in other ways. All well and good. Now, in this brochure are various photos of Scouting activities and participants. One of the photos is of a young woman, probably 15 to 18 years old, wearing a Venturing uniform shirt. (You have to use your imagination a bit since the photos are all black and white, but the shirt is considerably darker than the one worn by the young man standing next to her, who is clearly a Boy Scout.) You can see the left sleeve of her shirt and the front of the shirt. On the left sleeve, everything is where it is supposed to be, including the patch of a Venturning crew President. Perfect so far... until we get to her left shirt pocket. On her pocket she is wearing a patch that says "Council Executive Board." This immediately raised two issues, first, why is a youth a member of the Council Executive Board? and second, why is the position patch on her pocket? I think the only answer to the second question is, they made a mistake. That patch would go on the sleeve. My initial answer to the first question was, that must be a mistake too, because the Council Executive Board is an adult position. She clearly is a youth member because, number one, she looks like one, and number two, she is wearing the "President" patch (and in the right place.) But then I figured, ok, let me ask the assembled multitude. Is it possible that the young woman in the photo could actually be entitled to wear that patch? (If she wore it in the right place, of course.)

Wow, Eamonn, in all my years of that being my favorite album of all time by anyone, I never realized that that was a reference to a specific newspaper. But for those few of us who may be confused at this point, these are the lyrics to a song on the Beatles' Abbey Road album: Well you should see Polythene Pam She's so good looking but she looks like a man Well, you should see her in drag dressed in a polythene bag Yes you should see Polythene Pam Yeah, yeah, yeah Get a dose of her in jackboot and kilt She's killer diller when she's dressed to the hilt She's the kind of a girl that makes the News of the World Yes you could say she was attractively built Yeah, yeah, yeah Hmm, I'm not so sure Pam's lifestyle would qualify her for a leadership position in the BSA. Maybe in British Scouting, though...

What's all this I've been hearing lately about Ear-Elephants? Of course elephants have ears, big floppy ones, too, and they... Oh. "Never mind."

Oh. Now I checked the web site. I see, it's supposed to be funny. I like to think I have a pretty good sense of humor. Unfortunately, this web site shares a tendency that I personally find in most British humor (or humour): It's not funny. Of course the occasional geniuses come along such as Monty Python and Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), and they're funny. But I'm talking about the day-to-day stuff that's supposed to be funny, and most of it seems like one big inside joke to me. Like this.

I'm confused. What is it about the book that made someone, even someone who is insane, think that there was something wrong with it? And I don't get whether there is actually a list that the handbook is on, or whether the definition of prohibited material is written so broadly that someone is just saying, hey, this is so broad it could include the Scout Handbook. Logically I would think it was the latter, but then there is that part in the story about the handbook being listed in an indictment. ???

Oh well, Terry, I think MOST of us cats understood what you meant... at least, that's what I herd...

My problem with this article is how it ties in the Boy Scout / San Diego issue at the end. One can argue that the ACLU should not be involved in the NAMBLA case, and I'm not going to get involved in that. But here is yet another article saying that the problem with the Boy Scouts in San Diego is a problem that the ACLU has. If only the big bad NAMBLA-loving ACLU would stop picking on the little Boy Scouts, then all those innocent little boys in San Diego would have a place to camp. (So the article suggests.) But it's just wrong. The question is not what the ACLU is doing in the San Diego case, the question is whether the Boy Scouts is correct or not, in thinking that it can get a $1 a year lease for the exclusive right to a portion of the park, when the city would be violating the constitution by doing so. As much as I hate to see the BSA lose any sort of public funding, or use of public land, due to the shortsighted, religiously sectarian policies of the current BSA leadership, everything I have seen suggests that the BSA will lose that case. Don't blame the ACLU for being correct in that case. Blame the BSA for trying to have its cake and eat it too. I'd much prefer letting the (probably) 10 or so openly gay people who want to be Scout leaders in, if they otherwise qualify.

Hey now OGE, I answered that post before you edited it.

Ah, yet another "opportunity" to admit my terrifying grasp of completely useless information, including about movies I've seen too many times: In "Ghostbusters," the name of the early-20th century architect who designed Dana Barrett's apartment building, as a hidden temple to the Sumerian god Gozer, is: Ivo Shandor. (First name pronounced Evo, as I recall.) Which, interestingly, shares some letters or sounds with both "Egon Spengler" (the Ghostbuster played by Harold Ramis) and "Igor Shafarevich," whoever he is, or isn't. I will leave for others to speculate whether all three names are fictional characters -- and if not, which ones. Just remember, don't cross the streams...

Ed, you are correct that Illinois has female lawyers now, as does every other state. I did a little looking around to see whether the Bradwell case has ever been directly overruled by the Supreme Court, or whether the states themselves decided over a period of time to allow women to be admitted to the practice of law. It appears to be the latter, though I strongly suspect that if such a limitation had existed into the 1970's, it would have been declared unconstitutional based on the developing understanding of the 14th Amendment and its restrictions on discrimination, which are of varying degrees depending on the type of discrimination. Here is an interesting article about this. http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/corb.htm (The article is somewhat in "legalese," I guess, but it has a good brief explanation both of the Supreme Court's current constitutional approach to gender discrimination, and the place of Bradwell in the development of that approach.) It is my suspicion that between the time of the Bradwell case (1873) and, say, 1930 or so, all states probably dropped their prohibitions on women practicing law -- voluntarily, not because a court told them to. This would be consistent with legislative developments concerning women over that period of time and thereafter. I don't remember all the details I once knew about this, but it was in the period from around 1880 to around 1920 that all states adopted laws permitting married women to enter into contracts and own property in their own name, because believe it or not, "at common law" they were not. (This rule, before it was changed, is referred to in the above-linked article, because the Illinois authorities based their prohibition on women lawyers in part on the fact that at that time, women (at least married ones) still could not enter into contracts without their husband's consent.) During the same period, an increasing number of states were giving women the right to vote, and of course by 1920(+-) this was extended to all states by constitutional amendment. I think it's a safe bet that with the extinction of many of the legal restrictions on women participating in business transactions, and with women given full powers of participation in the political process, it must have seemed increasingly foolish to prohibit women from practicing law.

This is not in response to Wheeler. It is in response to Achilleez, Marty_Doyle, and to some extent to Sturgen though I assume his post is at least mostly tongue-in-cheek. I do not disagree with what these posters have said, I just want to make clear what I am saying, and why am doing what I am doing. All I have said is that I do not intend to respond to Wheeler's posts, and why. I am not suggesting that anyone else do anything, or not do anything. Other people will do what they think is best, and I will continue to read the results. My main reason for "announcing" what I was doing, rather than simply ceasing to respond to Wheeler's posts, is that I didn't want anyone to misinterpret my sudden silence on subjects that I usually comment on. I'm not asking others to do the same, or for that matter NOT to do the same. And to the extent that there is any seriousness in Sturgen's post, I obviously am not suggesting torches and pitchforks at midnight. I also have not stated or predicted what impact my silence, or anyone else's silence if that is what someone else chooses, will have, or may have, or is intended to have. I don't necessarily expect it to have any impact at all. I am not trying to "get rid" of anyone. I am simply ceasing to do something that I have concluded is not worth the time I have been spending on it. As for Achilleez's use of the word "convenient," actually, it is not convenient at all. I like participating in this forum, which at the present time includes making my way through Wheeler's posts. I am continuing to read them, out of curiosity. Since my post yesterday about not responding to Wheeler, he has made a number of additional statements that I am just itching to respond to. Some of them are just factually incorrect, most of them involve really preposterous conclusions, and in at least one case there is another major contradiction between what he has said previously and what he is saying now (hint, compare previous statements about "monarchy" and its role in a "republic," and his post of this morning about "princes." Yeah, I realize that got close to being a "response." But my normal inclination in this forum would be to respond to about five different posts by Wheeler since last evening, and I am not going to do it. Refraining from posting, when I normally would, and might even find it enjoyable, is not "convenient." My fingers are inexorably drawn to the keyboard to respond, but I am telling them they can't. I have even started writing responses a couple of times, and prefacing them with "Well, just this one more time." But no. I am sticking to what I said, however "inconvenient" it might be.

BobWhite says: The National Executive Committee are LIBERALS? What do you think this is, auditions for comedy night? Well, it's nice that I can agree with BobWhite on something in the Issues and Politics forum. I think this whole thing with Wheeler (to whom this is not a response) illustrates the difference between having a conversation with someone who is elsewhere on the political spectrum (like, for example, me and BobWhite, or even me and Rooster) and trying to have a conversation with someone who isn't even on the same spectrum.

Bob, your imaginary reply by the BSA to Rep. Frank might be appropriate if Rep. Frank's letter was either (1) disrespectful of the BSA or its position on the subject, or (2) inaccurate about the BSA's position. It is neither. It is both respectful and accurate. You point out what you claim is a "misrepresentation" by Rep. Frank. I don't see it. What is the real, practical difference between believing that openly gay persons are "unworthy of association with the Boy Scouts" and banning openly gay persons from "leadership and membership" because it would be "inconsistent with the goals of scouting?" In other words, what types of "association" with the Boy Scouts do not involve "leadership" or "membership" in the BSA. Giving money? (How nice, if that's the case.) Being a parent of a Scout? (Which would mean having your child be a member of an organization that publicly states that YOU (an openly gay parent) are not a good role model for being a moral person.) I don't think either of these support your point that Rep. Frank's statement is a "misrepresentation" of the BSA's position. Maybe I am missing some, so tell me Bob, in what other ways are openly gay people permitted to "associate" with the Boy Scouts?

Although it may seem odd that I am responding to my own thread when nobody else did, actually Wheeler started two other threads that both appear to be in "response" to different aspects of the post above. I don't want to write two separate posts, and I don't want to start yet ANOTHER new thread for this post, especially because I have made a decision: This is where I get off the Wheeler train. This is probably my last response to Wheeler. A bit more about that below. In one of Wheeler's new threads, he provides more "evidence" that the U.S.A. is a "socialist" nation (which should not be a surprise since in one post he also said that every nation on Earth is "socialist.") My response was to give him (second-hand since I am not a socialist) the perspective of socialists I have spoken to in the past, who would be happy if Wheeler were correct, but who have sadly assured me that this country is firmly in the capitalist category. Wheeler's answer to that was some quote that looks Biblical but is not cited, blessing the man "who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly," which I can only assume means that Wheeler thinks I should not have been talking politics with self-described socialists. Of course, since Wheeler things most Americans are socialists, I'm not sure who he thinks I should be talking to. In the other thread, Wheeler posts a concurring opinion from a 131-year-old Supreme Court decision. As TwoCubDad pointed out, this is a "concurring" opinion and therefore not a majority opinion, so it has no real precedential value. Just out of curiosity, however, I looked it up, and it turns out Justice Bradley had two other justices joining his opinion, but I am pretty sure the Court was already up to 9 members by the 1870's, so it's 3 out of 9. I also read the majority opinion, which says that states could decline to admit women to the practice of law, for legal reasons having to do with the 14th Amendment that are more than I want to write a dissertation on right now. Suffice it to say that this is no longer the law and that the 14th Amendment has been re-interpreted so that the result today would be different. I know Wheeler believes in the "original intent" school of Constitutional interpretation, but that generally is not how the Constitution is interpreted, which I regard as a good thing because if it was, we probably would have needed a whole new Constitution before now, and I am not so sure that it would have come into existence through a nonviolent process. But that is a historical essay for another day. The point is, ok, 131 years ago Justice Bradley wrote that a woman's place is in the home. (Not in those exact words, of course, but pretty close.) It almost goes without saying to say, So what? We all know that the general attitude toward gender roles in the 1870's was different than it is today. It also was different for most of the 1960's than it is today. As I discussed in my last post, it really began to change in the late 60's and early 70's. So all Wheeler has done is to provide a written example of what changed. As I have suggested above, I no longer see any point in all this. I think I have said all I need to say about Wheeler's "false logic," his misuse and abuse of philosophy and philosophical writings, and the irrelevance of what he says to the Scouting program of today. Wheeler has long since started to repeat himself, including some of his quotes, and some of us are repeating ourselves in response to his responses to our responses to his... Stop. At least, I will stop. It is madness. It is pointless. Worst of all, worst of all, it is boring. I will try to stop responding to Wheeler. I will limit myself to subjects that have not been completely beaten into the ground... like whether the BSA should permit openly gay leaders. (That was a joke! )

Mark, as I am sure you know, this kind of thing happens all the time, more usually in fund-raising than in a "letter of support" campaign like this. Every now and then there will be a funny story about the chairman of the Democratic National Committee or someone like that, getting a fundraising letter from the Republicans, saying "Dear Friend of the Republican Party" or something like that. Or vice versa. I think what probably happens is that the lists go through one level of scrutiny but that to do any more than that would cost more than the 30-whatever cents it costs to just send out the bulk mail.

Yeah, well you know that BobWhite, he's just a big ol' Socialist, poisoning young minds with those left-wing radical ideas of his. It's all just too funny.

And yet, when I have spoken to actual Communists and socialists, they regard this country as being a capitalist oligarchy in which the people have no real power; they regard "social programs" (which you think help mark us as a socialist country) as just being a small bone thrown to the masses to stave off real social change and economic justice; while you call Democrats Liberal Socialists and Republicans Conservative Socialists, actual socialists refer to the "Democratic and Republican wings of the American Capitalist Party." Slightly to the left of Wheeler, of course, are conservatives who think the Democratic party is infested with socialists. I have to laugh when I hear someone on the radio refer to Bill Clinton as a "socialist." Socialist presidents don't push NAFTA through Congress. I do understand, Wheeler, that from your perspective none of the above makes any sense. You think the socialists have won. Real socialists know that they have basically lost. And the rest of us in the middle, I think, sort of muddle through trying to make progress on one issue at a time, in the direction we think best, whether it be for or against tax cuts, for or against more education spending, or whatever, and voting for candidates who actually have a chance of winning, even if we might really prefer someone more to our own way of thinking. Or is that a little too practical for a Big Thinker such as yourself, Wheeler?

(Maybe that should be "a" historical retrospective, I think that depends on what college you went to and in what decade.) Anyway, since Wheeler likes to quote things, I thought some selected quotes from Wheeler might be illuminating. I'm starting this as a new thread because I am pulling together quotes from a number of different threads. On Feb. 10, in his first post anywhere in this forum, Wheeler said: Socialists teach and preach Unisexism. This is ungodly counsel. Unisexism is not Christian or godly or righteous. Socialists disdain virtue; look on how they attack the Boy Scouts. The very meaning of arete is contrary to unisexism. Unisexism is based on opinion that men and women are equal. To accomplish this task, one must masculinize women and effeminize men. On Feb. 11 at 10:02 AM, Wheeler said: Right now, the Boy Scouts of America are under attack. Why??? Have you done anything wrong? And on the same date at 9:37 AM Wheeler said: America is socialist. Most Americans are socialists. Now, in the last few days we have had a number of posts from Wheeler criticizing the current BSA for using "socialist" words, specifically for using words that depart from the "male" character of the organization, and for failing to remain a male-only organization. I have not been able to find a post where Wheeler actually accuses the BSA of "being" "socialist," but I think the implication is there. I did find this, written by Wheeler yesterday, Feb. 25 at 8:43 AM: But this is what takes the cake, the BSA has adopted language of the feminists and their agenda. The BSA has become 'effeminate' because it can not stand up (be brave) for their boys and call them boys. They are now 'people'. The BSA, an organization started in helping boys, has now adopted the language of hate toward boys. Feminization of the BSA? The BSA cannot stand up for manliness, manhood, or males. OK, so what is the "big picture" here? First, I think the reason why so many of Wheeler's conclusions are rejected by the vast majority of posters in this forum is that he starts with premises that most of us disagree with, and builds from there. I am sure most of us don't agree that "America is socialist" or that "Most Americans are socialist." There are others in this forum who have, in the past, opined that all social programs (or maybe just programs they don't like) are "socialist" (I forget who) and there are some who have in the past associated "liberals" with "socialism." But even for most of those people, I doubt whether the idea that "America is socialist" would be acceptable. Second, Wheeler has gone from bemoaning the fact that the BSA is "under attack," to attacking the BSA himself. Now, I of course don't think there is anything wrong with criticizing a policy of the BSA that one disagrees with, as I obviously have done this myself. But I think I (and almost all others who have criticized some aspect of BSA policy in this forum) have at least been consistent. I don't say the BSA should change something one day, and then a few days later criticize someone else for suggesting that the BSA should change something else. If someone does criticize a policy that I agree with, I simply defend the policy. If, for example, someone criticizes the BSA for banning paintball as a Scouting activity, I don't say, "Oh no, the BSA is under attack." I simply say why I think it's a good thing, or at least an understandable and acceptable thing, for the BSA to ban paintball. Third, if one were to accept that "America is socialist," then it probably shouldn't come as too big a surprise that the BSA has become "socialist" as well. (Obviously, I agree with neither proposition.) After all, it is the largest youth organization in the country, and is present in every state and just about every community. Although I have said that I think there is a "disconnect" between the BSA and the "social policy" of some communities on one specific subject, by and large I think the BSA is usually reflective of our American society as a whole. About 30-35 years ago (more or less in some aspects), this country began to accept the fact that a strict separation of gender roles and opportunities should no longer be considered correct or necessary. Women no longer had to choose between being a nurse or teacher or waitress or not working at all, or being considered an "oddity" for being in one of the male professions (including medicine and law) where their roles were usually limited. Now a woman can be a lawyer on an equal footing with a man; a woman can be an Army general; a woman can be a police chief. It should be no surprise that toward the beginning of the era in question, the BSA decided that after a particular age (14), there was room for a coed program in Scouting, and a little later, that a woman could serve the program as a leader in most capacities, and finally in any capacity. Although there still seems to be some controversy about this in this forum, I think most agree that the involvement of women (and young women in Venturing) is a good thing. As far as "language" goes, yes, the BSA has somewhat "modernized" its use of language when it comes to the genders, and there is nothing wrong with that. I doubt that all references to "boys" are out of the handbook, nor should they be; they are boys, though overuse of that term should probably be avoided, especially with young men nearing 18. In our troop I have noticed that the leaders try not to refer to the "boys" as "boys," at least not to their faces. It's not really necessary since the word "Scout" is handy, but there are times when the word "young man" is heard, and that obviously is gender-specific. (Our SM will sometimes address the assembled troop as "gentlemen," but I think they have come to realize that the next words out of his mouth are probably going to express displeasure about something. Much of the time I think he just says "you guys" when talking to the group, but that is just how he talks.) The point is that in a Boy Scout troop, we still do recognize that the "people" we are there for are all of one particular gender, though we the leaders may no longer be all of one gender. The BSA also gives older boys a chance to be in a program where there are also young ladies, if that is what they want. That seems like a good thing too, because although you may not like it Wheeler, when the boys are in the "real world" they are almost all going to be in situations where they are dealing with women on a co-equal basis, and a little practice can't hurt. I think I have made my point. Wheeler, there has already been some speculation that you are not "for real," that this is all a big joke. Regardless of whether that is true, it is clear to me that your whole argument regarding the BSA is just a house of cards. It contradicts itself, as I have shown. As for all the rest of it, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, etc., I guess they are just faces on the cards. (Ayn Rand must be one of the Jokers.) But the cards have already fallen down, Wheeler.

It seems amusing to me, Acco. As we've already seen, however, not everybody around here shares our sense of humor about some things...

Acco: Told ya.

I have been called a lot of things in my life, but I've never been called a "redneck." Even collectively. One might think that being a nice Jewish boy born in Newark, New Jersey, and never having lived more than 40 miles from there, might have shielded me from the "redneck" label. I've even read Jeff Foxworthy's Redneck book, and saw no resemblance. As for the more important issue of "becoming a man," I think what I already said really resolves this. Though some may not agree, I think the concept of "becoming a man" is still present in Scouting, it is just expressed in different language.

Wheeler, words fail me. (Well, almost.) You almost make me want to think the war in Iraq was a really great idea. (Almost.) You are living in some fantasy Universe. Anyone whether in favor of that war or not, can see that there is now at least a chance that at least a majority of people in Iraq will have a government that actually works for them, instead of killing them. It may not happen that way, and whatever does happen may not end up being worth the sacrifice we have made. But there was no chance for them at all, under Saddam Hussein. As for Saudi Arabia become lazy, soft, whatever... I'm a little bit more concerned about the fact that people who get direct support from the government would like to see me, and all my countrymen, dead in a smoking hole in the ground like they did to 3,000 of us on 9/11. If the president invaded Saudi Arabia tomorrow, I would be right there. Well, I'm a little old to be right there, but I would support it. I have to hand it to you, Wheeler, it takes quite a bit to prompt me to say things like I just said...