NJCubScouter

Hey, actually I think we owe Wheeler some thanks. I think there have been more jokes, quips, little humorous remarks and other merry diversions in Issues and Politics in the past few days than in any given month of the 2 years I have been in this forum. And all directly or indirectly prompted by Wheeler's posts. Of course, none of this funny stuff was written by Wheeler, nor was it probably appreciated as humor by him. He is too busy calling all of us "Judases" for letting gurlz into the BSA clubhouse. (As in "No gurlz allowed.")

Oops, here is how that last post was supposed to look, and I decided to add a sentence too: Big Dog says: Hey, that brings up a new idea... Turn the boys loose and tell them the objective is ham and eggs for breakfast! Just kidding NJ.. Heh heh, well actually, based on size of some pigs, that sounds like a much fairer fight. In fact, depending on the respective sizes of the boy and the pig, and whether the boy has been properly equipped, I suspect that a Scout might end up not only with no ham, but with some injuries as well. The prospects for the chicken seem much more likely to be gruesome. A guy here at work gave me the thought for the day: Ham and eggs for breakfast- all in a days work for a chicken, the work of a lifetime for the hog...' Maybe he was sitting on the stool in the diner next to Paul Simon, when he saw a chicken-and-egg dish on the menu and was inspired to write the song "Mother and Child Reunion."

Hey, that brings up a new idea... Turn the boys loose and tell them the objective is ham and eggs for breakfast! Just kidding NJ.. Heh heh, well actually, based on size of some pigs, that sounds like a much fairer fight. In fact, depending on the respective sizes of the boy and the pig, and whether the boy has been properly equipped, I suspect that a Scout might end up not only with no ham, but with some injuries as well. A guy here at work gave me the thought for the day: Ham and eggs for breakfast- all in a days work for a chicken, the work of a lifetime for the hog...' Maybe he was sitting on the stool in the diner next to Paul Simon, when he saw a chicken-and-egg dish on the menu and was inspired to write the song "Mother and Child Reunion."

Firstpusk, I think the Sartre-coffee thing is hilarious. I would give it 2 thumbs up if the system would let me. Not only because it's funny, but because us guys with only one and a half stars have to stick together. When I read it a second time, though, I realize it sounds almost exactly like some real-life conversations I have had with various non-English speaking Dunkin Donuts employees while placing my order...

FOG, my county is run by a board of only five members. In my previous post I was going to comment that governing bodies below the state level (county, municipal, school board, whatever) are generally unicameral throughout the U.S., but then I decided this was irrelevant because none of these are "sovereign" and therefore are not "republics." They are created by state law and could be abolished by state law, or by operation of state law -- such as in many cases where a new municipality can be created by referendum, or a municipal and county government can merge by referendum. But they can only do so because state law says they can. Both the states and the federal goverment, however, are sovereign -- with limitations placed on the sovereignty of each by the U.S. Constitution. My county governing body, though not a republic, is nevertheless all-Republican. At one point in the last century, it was chaired by Christine Todd Whitman, future former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Wheeler says: Then I give a statement from Benjamin Franklin. Someone ran up to him outside the convention and asked him, "What government are you going to give us?" Mr. Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." What is he refering to? Well, not exactly. You have the answer right, but not the question. Once you know what the question really was, the answer supports what I said to you several posts ago about what "republic" really meant and how you are making too much of the word. Here is what really happened, with the key words in bold: A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Again I agree with FOG. (Satan just got hit with a snowball.) Wheeler, not only might you consider living a little more in the here and now, but you might also consider using definitions of words that are accepted in the here and now and not insisting on definitions as they existed 2500 or even 200 years ago, if they've changed or been added to. FOG earlier posted definitions that showed that a "republic" and a "representative democracy" can be the same thing, and in fact they are. You're absolutely right that at one time democracy meant "mob rule" and that the Framers of our Constitution were very concerned about this, and as a result put in all kinds of checks and balances. To be somewhat more realpolitik about it, what they were concerned about was preventing the property rights of the land-holding and merchant classes from being swept away by the superior numbers of the "masses." But both this explanation, and yours, are an oversimplification of the much more complicated process that actually ocurred. I know a lot more about the acts and writings of Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams et al than I know about Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and Cicero. I don't have time to write an essay now. But if you are trying to imply that the Framers looked at what Cicero wrote and slapped their heads and said, "Yeah, that's the ticket," I'm afraid that's not how it happened. The separation of powers both within the federal government, between the federal and state governments and between the large and small states (as reflected in the existence of two houses of Congress and the different apportionment of each) are all the results of political compromises. Of course the Framers knew about the options presented by philosophical writings, and used them. But when you actually read about what happened, it's pretty interesting to see that Hamilton, basically a monarchist, wanted a President-for-life, while Jefferson (who was in France during the Constitutional convention) questioned the need for a Senate at all, and in the end Madison and others figured out how to make everyone equally unhappy, which is basically how compromises occur. One other thing. A bicameral legislature is NOT necessary for a "Republican form of government." One state, I am pretty sure it is Nebraska, has a unicameral legislature, and I am also pretty sure that there were lawsuits claiming that this violated the "Republican form of government" clause. The courts decided that one house is enough if that's what the people want. I also wonder whether Israel would qualify as a Republic (which it clearly is) under your definition, as it has a one-house legislature, and it really has nothing corresponding to a "king." It does have a president, but he is elected by the legislature and has only ceremonial power, and a prime minister who (after a brief experiment in direct election) also is chosen by the legislature. I'm not even going to get into the part about the mitochondria. You are generally correct that many things in nature and in human relations have a three-part structure, but as with a lot of your other writings, you take a few facts on a trip around several other solar systems and come back sounding like the philosophical equivalent of Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger.

What? No mention of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateralists, the international banker conspiracy (sometimes known as the international Jewish banker conspiracy) or the Bilderbergers? Or maybe, Wheeler, you didn't want to make it too obvious that you were part of the international conspiracy theory, black helicopter, tin-foil-antennae-to-hear-the-messages-from-outer-space crowd. But your Mr. McAlvany is clearly a part of all that, as a quick Internet search demonstrated. Here are a couple of choice links: http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/samwells.htm http://watch.pair.com/FreedomHouse.html The first one, by the way, praises both the work of Mr. McAlvany and a book about the "international conspiracy" (not yet called the New World Order) published by the John Birch Society. Both of these links associate Mr. McAlvany (favorably)with those who believe in this stuff. But here, for some balance, is an interesting twist on the whole thing, in which the "international conspiracy" loses its "Jewish connection" and becomes a part of a supposed evangelical Christian plot to take over the world. http://www.yourmessiah.org/xianity.html I think this last one may be either a parody, or semi-tongue in cheek, "just to make a point," though I didn't read it closely enough to figure out which.

Yeah, OGE, these kids today... On a more cosmic scale but somewhat related, I saw a tv show a few days ago on my favorite channel (the History Channel) in which it was said that in virtually every generation of mankind since people started to write, some percentage of the population believed that they were living in the "end time." But that does not deter some people today from thinking they know something that all those thousands of years' worth of other people did not. It may, however, help explain why there are so many cranky people around.

I don't why I am even bothering, but I know that on this issue, Wheeler is not alone in his opinions. Wheeler says: But if remember right, when the choice is open to procreate the animals procreate. Homosexual men leave women and hang exclusively to other men. They seek death. How do you account for the heterosexual people who choose not to have children? Do they seek death too? I have known a number of these folks, married and living-together couples, with nothing physical (that I was aware of) preventing them from having children. They just never tried, so they never succeeded. And there are others I have known who did have some problem having children and decided to go straight to adoption (or childlessness) without trying any of the modern technological means for having their own children. Do they seek death, too? We seem to have survived pretty well as a species with "only" 95 percent of us being "oriented" toward procreation. In order to continue their society, they must recruit. The recruit other effeminate men who are unsure of their sexuality and manliness. Homosexuality always erupts in cities. I have to shake my head when I read things like this. I have known a number of gay people and it just seems like very few (if any) fit some of the generalizations I read about in this forum. I think most gay people would just like to be part of society in general, not their own "society." And as for "effeminate," I've known both gay and straight men who seemed "effeminate" and both gay and straight men who did not. And I've never seen a lot of recruitment going on, though admittedly I don't hang out in too many places where it is likely to go on. It's difficult for me to believe that someone could be "recruited" to homosexual activity if they are not oriented toward it. As for what goes on in cities, I think it is just the opposite, that many gay people tend to gravitate to cities because they think they will find more acceptance there. I also think that is becoming less and less true all the time. I have seen newspaper articles explaining that homosexuality is becoming an increasingly "suburban" phenomenon, with gay couples (some with children) buying homes and living the Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle, just with one little difference. In fact there are suburban communities in New Jersey (and I assume in some other states) that are becoming increasingly known as "gay friendly" locations and slowly but surely, that demographic is becoming a significant force in the community. I am sure you will not find that a welcome development either, but it does go against your image of homosexuality as some dark and perverse illness that breeds in cities along with the cockroaches and sewer rats. In the country, when a country man, usually of low intelligence, and CAN NOT CONTROL HIMSELF, will use bestiality. Do tell. I find it interesting that some of those who are most rabidly anti-gay seem to talk about bestiality quite a bit. I will defer to your superior knowledge of the subject, as I have never known someone who acknowledged this sort of behavior. Maybe my urban and suburban upbringing has shielded me from these things.

I know, Packsaddle, I can hardly stand it myself sometimes.

Just another thought, other than a university there is only a couple other public institution where you live in poverty have free computer and library access, multiple low paying jobs, confined living quarters, and no access to transportation. Hmmm, sounds a lot like some places where some of my clients are residing at the present time. But I don't think they have unlimited computer access, in fact I doubt they would be able to access any web sites at all other than carefully selected legal research sites. (Especially the one who used his computer as the means to do what he did that got him where he currently is.) I have never gotten an e-mail from one of them, and since most people in those places seem to want to call their lawyer EVERY SINGLE DAY, you'd think if they had e-mail they would have figured out how to find my address. (Some of them are very good at figuring things out, unfortunately for them they figured out the wrong things.) I doubt very much whether any of them would be permitted to sit at a computer long enough to compose a lengthy forum post. If that's what you're getting at, Sturgen.

BigDog and TP, Look, I understand that chicken does not grow in the cellophane-wrapped packages I buy at Shop Rite, or in nugget form at McDonald's. I understand that someone, somewhere, had to kill and prepare the chicken. And if I suddenly found myself actually in a situation where I would starve otherwise, I would do the best that my 46-year-old overweight body could do to catch the chicken, and then I would, though unhappily, convert it into lunch. However, that's not the same as sending a bunch of teenagers out into a field, and seeing what they can do with a bunch of live chickens, for practice. TP, I am sure that with your family training, you sent your chicken to its reward very quickly and no less humanely than a "professional" would have. That particular chicken has no complaint. (Well, you know what I mean.) What made me sort of queasy, though, was the comment about some of the boys not being able to kill their chicken. Did someone show them how first? I sort of get this disturbing mental image of some unpleasant things being done to these birds in a futile effort to get them to lie still and get cooked. While I am not an animal rights person (obviously, since I eat chicken, etc.), I do think that we "intelligent creatures" have some sort of obligation to not cause any more pain or discomfort to animals than is necessary. It seems to me that principle would not be followed by setting a bunch of boys loose on a bunch of chickens with instructions to kill 'em and eat 'em if you can. TP, I also was a Boy Scout in 1976, and I don't recall any freelance chicken-slaughtering activities in our troop. So I guess I'm on the side of the "soccer moms" this time.

First of all, Wheeler, I went back to your first post in this thread, where you say that "Philosophy" is a science, and you also say that "Philosophy proves all living things have souls." How does "Philosophy" prove that, or anything like that? How does any science prove anything about souls? The "soul" is a religious concept, or if you prefer, a spiritual concept. You may have a "philosophy" (small "p", meaning a particular set of ideas and beliefs) that says there is a "soul," but to the extent that "Philosophy" (big P) can be considered a "science," it would have to be neutral on the subject of souls. Which sort of brings me to something in your latest post: Philosophy, which is a science, proves the story of Creation. You disregard the inerrancy of the Scriptures, you disregard the God who made the scriptures. When you say "the story of Creation," I assume from your other writings that you mean the creation-story at the beginning of Genesis. (Though as firstpuck correctly points out, there are 2, and they are not completely consistent.) If that is the case, and the "science of Philosophy" "proves" the Genesis story of Creation, then I suppose Aristotle (who as I understand it, did not know of the Book of Genesis although it did exist in Hebrew during his time) came up with this story all on his own, right? Why would he need the Bible at all, if what it says is "proven" by "Philosophy"? My answer, of course, is: Just as Philosophy can't prove or disprove the existence of a soul, Philosophy (by itself) cannot prove or disprove how mankind was created. However, on this subject, unlike the subject of souls, Philosophy has some help, and that help comes from science. Not what you call "science," but real science. Science gives us some facts about the development of species, and theories to fill in the rest. Philosophy can be used by some to add to what science has told us, for example Philosophy (or religion) can suggest (but again, not prove) that evolution was part of God's design. But Philosophy can't overrule science. Science deals with facts. Philosophy deals with ideas and opinions, and in some cases those ideas and opinions can affect how we think about the facts provided by science... but it can't change the facts. As to your second sentence, about the inerrancy of Scripture, I suppose you do have a point that if someone believes God literally wrote the Bible, they must also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. However, if you believe that the relationship between God and the Bible is something different, either that God inspired the Bible, or that the Bible is just one group of ancient peoples' attempt to explain God, then it's a different story. (Since this is after all a Scouting forum (which reminds me of the moment in the song Alice's Restaurant in which Alice reappears in the story after a lengthy absence and Arlo Guthrie then says, "You remember Alice?"), I just want to remind you that Scouting does not require a belief that God wrote or inspired any particular book, only a belief that some higher power exists.) But for that reason, what you say about the inerrancy of the Bible isn't going to prove anything to anybody. There are other people in this forum who also believe the Bible is inerrant, they were here before you got here and they will be here (or in one notable case, he will return, at least I think he will) long after you figure out that this forum is not the place for in-depth discussions of philosophy, and go elsewhere. As for the rest of us, including me, hearing someone say the Bible is inerrant is sort of like the points on "Whose Line is it Anyway." (Sorry. At the beginning of every show, Drew Carey says "The points don't matter." And sometimes follows that with some explanation like "Yup, the points don't matter, they're like the warning on a pack of cigarettes. Or, they're like the surveillance camera at the 99 cent store.) Point is, if you believe something you believe it, and if you don't, you don't. If there's proof of it, it's science. But you can't prove God wrote a book. You can believe it, and many people do, and I used to, but you can't prove it.

Trail Pounder, Please tell me you're joking about the chickens...

Hey Scoutldr, at least you're at 2.5. I went down to 1.5.

I am at once sympathetic and unsympathetic with those who have other people trying to police what they eat. You see, I have the pleasure of having a militant vegetarian living in my house (my 17-year-old daughter.) Her own food intake apparently not being enough for her to worry about, she regularaly harangues the ominvorous residents of the house about our eating habits. (Though the most carnivorous member of the household seems to get a break; sometimes it pays to be a dog, I guess.) And since I do almost all the food shopping for the house due to my wife's various medical conditions, I have to spend 20-30 minutes more than I used to, each time, getting my darling daughter her own special food. (Make her do it herself, I hear some say, but she lacks a driver's license, which is just as well. Or, make her come with me and get what she wants? Usually not, I'm much happier and saner after doing it myself.) This would include eggs which say "Free Roaming Hens" on the carton and are probably therefore more expensive (I don't even look at the price, what would be the point?), but if you ask me, they could just as easily be regular non-free-roaming eggs. Now, all this is a picnic compared to the 3 or 4 months in which she was a Vegan (that is, nothing from an animal, no milk, cheese, eggs, honey etc.) Suddenly Campbell's Vegetarian Vegetable soup, and even most of the brands that cater exclusively (and expensively) to vegetarians, were no good because the 14th ingredient on the list indicates some fleck of milk or egg protein. That easily added an hour onto every shopping trip and unknown numbers of points to my blood pressure. Fortunately, she eventually decided she was spending way too much time thinking about eating, reading about eating, and agonizing about eating, as opposed to actually eating, and she went back to just being a vegetarian.

OGE, your post made me think of something I had previously thought about Wheeler, but didn't write at first. And that is this: It's ok to think you're smarter than everyone else around you. But if you let everybody KNOW you think that, you'd better be right. And even then...

"Redemptive suffering," yes, that about describes my experience in reading some of the threads recently.

Good grief. Wheeler, can't you say things in your own words instead of giving us strings of 2,000++ year old quotes?

Well, TwoCubDad, the idea of forced marches and hand-to-hand combat sounds interesting, it would certainly make for some unique conversations among leaders. "Say, Spartacus, I never see little Johnnie at troop meetings any more." "Um, no, Agamemnon, little Johnnie was too small and weak to survive the Trials last month. It's a shame, he could tie a mean bowline. But the troop will be stronger for it when we go up against Troop 12 next week."

I don't get to agree with FOG all that often, so let me take this opportunity to do so. FOG says: Democracy, political system in which the people of a country rule through any form of government they choose to establish. In modern democracies, supreme authority is usually exercised by popularly elected representatives. The representatives may be replaced by the electorate according to the legal procedures of recall and referendum, and they are in principle responsible to the electorate. That first sentence is a definition of modern democracy that I have never seen before, but it is a good one. It ties in with the definition of "republic" that FOG also posted, which concludes with the acknowledgment that a modern representative democracy and a republic can be one and the same thing. The only quibble I would have with it is that maybe it also needs to have something about the people retaining actual power to change the form of government. Meaning, the people can "choose to establish" a government but if the head of government decides to become a dictator and enforces this through his/her control of the government, and the people have lost the ability to change the form of government, it has ceased to be a democracy. This can change back and forth. For example, up until a few years ago, Pakistan was a democracy, and it probably will be again, but right now it is not. To address what Scouter Paul said, I think the only essential characteristic of a democracy is the first sentence of FOG's definition. You seem to be focusing on the second sentence, and showing how it differs from the U.S. government. Literally speaking, you are correct that the president of the U.S. is not a "popularly elected representative." But that sentence says that supreme authority is usually exercised by popularly elected representatives. This is true, because in most democracies other than the U.S., the legislature (parliament or whatever) is the ultimate authority, and decides who is going to be in the "government" (prime minister and other officials.) Even where there is a monarch (such as the UK, Norway, the Netherlands, etc.) the legislature still has supreme authority because the monarch has no effective political power, and the legislature may abolish the monarchy. The UK does have the House of Lords, but I think if push came to shove, the House of Commons would win. France has a hybrid system with a directly elected president with significantly less power than the president of the U.S. The U.S. also has a hybrid system known as "separation of powers" where neither the executive or legislative branches have "supreme power" and where the chief executive is chosen by elected representatives from the states (electors) rather than by popular vote. As we are all well aware, the winner of the popular vote does not always win the election (and sometimes not the real winner of the electoral vote either, but let's not go there, shall we? ) But even in the presidential election, "the people" are indirectly choosing the president, so I think the U.S. still loosely fits into the second sentence of FOG's definition. The part about "recall and referendum" is probably meant to have "usually" attached to it as well, though perhaps it should be "sometimes." The federal government does not have recall and referendum, or for that matter, truly national elections. Many states in the U.S. have recall and/or referendum. New Jersey just adopted recall for elected officials at all levels, about five years ago, but does not have referendum at the state level. (Meaning that any public questions must be placed on the ballot by the Legislature, not by petition.) I am not aware of whether other nations have these features at the national level, though I do know that many European nations have had national referendums on major issues such as joining the EU and adopting the Euro as the national currency. But at the core of everything, the U.S. is both a representative democracy and a republic. Differences in detail do not change that.

Well, I looked all over the official BSA website and didn't find any links to websites. Do you know the message board of the high mucky mucks? Maybe I should be speaking to them. Maybe, I'm on the wrong board. So, if you know where that is, point me in that direction. There is no official, "public", message board run by BSA national. In fact, the last time I checked, national did not have a public e-mail address. You can write to them through regular mail. I am sure the councils and national have electronic links to each other, but they are not for "us" and I can understand why. It is in keeping with the general "pattern of communications" within the BSA. National rarely (if ever) communicates directly with people at the unit level except through published materials (Scouting magazine, training materials, handbooks, the supply catalog, etc.) More "immediate" communications (including memos "to all Scouters," and obviously including information pertaining to a specific unit) come from the council/district level. I'm not sure what happens if you call up national, unless you know a specific person, but I have a suspicion that nobody in a position of authority is going to stay on the phone with you very long to hear about Socrates and his theories on training youth. So, you can mail all your philosophical musings to national, and hopefully you will eventually get back something at least saying "Thank you for your interest," after all, a Scout is courteous. But there is no opportunity that I am aware of for "interactive" communications with national.

Without getting into some of the specifics discussed in this thread, I'd have to agree that wisdom (or common sense) does not necessarily go hand in hand with age (or experience.) Mp3 players were mentioned, and in my troop there seems to be an unwritten understanding that electronic entertainment devices are not brought on camping trips. There is no formal rule, but I have been on enough camping trips with this troop, without seeing any of these devices, to conclude that it is not a coincidence. However, the last trip was a joint cabin-camping trip with another troop, and that troop seems to have a completely different understanding, starting with the SM (and here is where this ties into the thread.) This SM (a former ASM of my son's troop who left on good terms to revive the other troop in the same town) is in his 50s and brought along a portable DVD player, and spent a considerable amount of time in his bunk watching movies. It will be no surprise that the boys in his troop had more than one portable CD player among them and spent the evenings (and parts of the days since the weather precluded doing a lot outside) listening to them. When we did decide to venture outside a couple of times for some short hikes, most of the boys from this troop (and our boys) were out there with OUR leaders, while this guy was still warming himself beside the stove in the cabin. Our SM also stayed behind but he was doing some emergency repairs in the cabin. The other thing this other SM did that I had a problem with was smoke. Evidently he is one of those who reads the "rule" to allow smoking as long as you don't do it in front of the boys. However, I don't think he was successful in completely hiding it. I did not really feel like I was in a position to say anything, but I did tell our SM that I don't think we should be doing any more joint camping trips with this other troop until their SM learns to set a better example. What he does in his own troop is between him and the parents/committee/CO of that troop, but we don't need him showing our boys that camping trips are for spending hours in a bunk watching movies -- or smoking. So no, age and wisdom don't always go together.

Wheeler, while I did not notice you drawing a distinction between "becoming a man" and "becoming a woman" in this thread, you did in at least one other thread. I think you said, in essence, that becoming a woman does not require any training, while becoming a man does. Certainly your discussion of "becoming a man" in this thread emphasizes the "man" aspect. That being the case, I can't help but notice your references to the Jewish Bar Mitzvah ceremony. The way you describe it sounds like you got it from a book as opposed to actually being at many of these ceremonies. But I wonder if you are aware that there is an equivalent ceremony for girls (the Bat Mitzvah.) To my understanding, it is a 20th century development (as generally is the concept that learning is equally important for girls as for boys, and the Bar/Bat Mitzvah is a mark of achievement in learning.) But it is equally important in current Jewish practice (well, maybe not if one is Orthodox, I'm not sure about that.)