NJCubScouter

I remember learning semaphore (though alas, I do not remember semaphore itself) for First Class. This would have been 1972 or so... actually it was right after the "new handbook" came out and I believe signalling was not a requirement in that handbook at all. As I recall, you were allowed to complete whatever rank you were working on in the old handbook and then switch to the new one for your next rank. But as I said, I am pretty sure that signalling was taken out of the handbook at that time, so if it was in there during the 90's, they must have put it back in at some point. I know it is not a requirement now, though. As for why they are no longer required, I was recently talking with someone about this, who sounded like he knew what he was talking about. He said the usefulness of these "codes" has really decreased, for example, you no longer need Morse code for Ham radio operation. Whether they still use it in the Navy, I'm not sure. They were still using it in the "Hunt for Red October" and that was about 15 years ago. (I know, that was fiction, but in its details I think it was pretty realistic. Actually in the movie the American sub captain says he's pretty rusty in his Morse code, I don't know if that was just because that would be the job of the lower ranks, or because the American Navy was no longer using it but the Soviet sub was.)

How many Varsity units are there, anyway? I have never seen or heard of one, and although I can't claim to have read every post in this forum, I have read a lot, and until the first post in this thread I have never seen anyone acknowledge being aware of any actual Varsity units. Nor have I heard any mention of actual units in either of the 2 other online Scouting forums I have participated in. (I did once see a boy wearing a uniform with "blaze" shoulder loops, and since he was on staff at a Cub Scouting event, I got a chance to talk to him. Turns out he actually was a member of a Venture patrol in a Boy Scout troop, but his SM had him wearing the wrong color loops (they should have been red). But I decided that I was not the one to tell him that.)

Pete Rose wins no awards for "attitude" from me, either from when he was a player or manager, when he was first accused of gambling, or now. I also think that with his "non-apology" and his subsequent comments that say in essence, "get over it," I personally think that he has blown his last change for reinstatement as an active participant in the game. He has said (if anyone can believe what he says) that his main goal is to be a manager again, and that being in the Hall of Fame is secondary. But I think that is exactly where he should be -- in the Hall of Fame. Maybe without the fancy ceremony, in order to "send a message" to the fans about his behavior. But the purpose of the Hall of Fame as I see it is simply to recognize the greatest careers in the game. It is not to hold the honorees up as role models of character, otherwise there are some long-installed members who would have to be removed. The man got more base hits than anyone else in the history of the game. I don't think his behavior changes that -- but it does change whether baseball welcomes him back as an active participant now.

Oh, one other thing: Am I the only one who "gets" TwoCubDad's humor?

I think this case is a good example of why the recent Ninth Circuit decision that was discussed on this board -- and criticized by some as "stupid and dangerous" as I recall -- actually was a good decision. The decision was NOT that "enemy detainees," "enemy combatants" or whatever, captured on foreign soil, have the same full menu of constitutional rights as a person accused of robbing a bank on Main Street U.S.A. The decision was that people who are being held in a place where the U.S. exercises sovereignty, have a right to challenge their detention in a U.S. court. All the other issues that follow from this remain to be determined. These issues would include, exactly what rights they have, and whether the government is obligated to publicly disclose information in court that might arguably be of use to the enemy in an ongoing "war on terrorism." When these issues are ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, my prediction is that the government's obligation will be only to make some limited showing of why these people are being held, rather than a "conviction" "beyond a reasonable doubt," and that situations in which confidential information is involved probably will be decided mostly in the government's favor. Of course, this may take years, by which time are these people even still going to be in custody? Or will they have been charged with crimes by that point? We shall see. But the point of the Nat Hentoff article, which I agree with, is that there has to be SOME limit on holding people.

Maybe it's time to start another thread and discuss whether being on a first name basis with the boys leads to less respect being shown to leaders or does not matter. I think a good point has been made that this is going to depend largely on whether the person is, to use an expression I don't really want to use, "older" or not. In other words, a person who has a son of Scouting age who is in the troop is probably a lot more likely to say, yes, it probably leads to less respect, and someone who has no children or (perhaps) only very young children might be more likely to say it does not matter. Of course even in the latter category, someone may have been brought up in a strict "respect for elders" environment and would still think it matters. I guess you could start a poll, but given past experience, there would probably be an argument about how it was worded...

Thanks Nld. 75 miles makes more sense, though based on what you and Acco are saying, our troop's decision probably will be that it is more trouble than it's worth. Maybe a family trip tied to a visit to D.C., but that's a ways away. (I probably won't last that long without taking my son to the new Air and Space Museum outside D.C. My son, who sits transfixed watching shows about military aircraft on the History Channel, and knows a lot of them by sight, started bouncing off the walls when he heard that the new museum has an SR-71 Blackbird... not to mention the Space Shuttle Enterprise.)

Well, thanks Acco, at least now I know. That is exactly what someone had suggested we think about doing, basically "attending unofficially" as a troop. I guess they didn't "get the memo" yet either. Since most of Virginia is within a 5-6 hour drive from here it would have been do-able as an overnight. But if they are discouraging it, I will not suggest that my troop do it. It's kind of funny though, if one were to take the 250-mile radius literally... according to maps.yahoo.com, the town nearest Fort A.P. Hill is about a 270 mile drive from my home (Mapquest says 290.) As the crow flies it is probably less than 250. Does that mean we wouldn't be able to get a tour permit to camp in our own county park? I also have to wonder how they picked 250 miles, I cannot conceive that someone would camp 250 miles from a place they were visiting; you'd spend the whole day driving instead of visiting.

Congrats to those of you who are going! Neither my son nor I will be part of the council's contingent. What I will be interested in is information on "visiting" the Jamboree. I understand a lot of people do that. However, I looked on my council's web page about the Jamboree and it was all about the contingent, nothing about visiting. Is there a web site somewhere that would have some information about this? And/or somewhere that would have information about reserving campsites within (say) a half-hour of the Jamboree site?

I just noticed this: Respect should neither be dependent upon age, nor its symbolic expression distributed based on it. At least not among the fellowship of scouting, that is. If the implication is that everybody (youths and adults) should be on the same "basis" (first or last names), obviously this is something I neither practice nor have seen others around me practice. Respect goes both ways, but how it is expressed and "symbolized" does not. The "fellowship of Scouting" recognizes different roles for adults and youth, as does most of our society. Maybe I am old fashioned, but being able to call someone by their first name is something to be earned. I'm not talking about a formal process; in the troop in which I am a committee member, it is automatic that leaders call each other by their first names when not in front of the boys, but that is because "we" (it was long before I got there) decided that fellow leaders are on that "basis." By the way, I have been able to compare the two "schools of thought" in a similar context, that is, school. In the public schools in my area, teachers are Mr./Mrs./Ms. to the students. However, one of my daughters has been to several schools that are (to be vague) better suited to her special needs, and in one of these schools, EVERYBODY called each other by their first name. Meaning, the students called all the teachers, counselors and principal by their first names. I didn't like it. I didn't think it contributed to the orderly running of the school, in a place where the nature of the students automatically created a challenge to "order." (I can say that because my darling daughter was one of the challengers.) In her next school, it was back to Mr./Mrs./Ms. (except there was one guy who was a bit of a 60s-70s throwback, who the students called by just his last name with no honorific) and since the school was "owned" (though not directly run) by an order of nuns, sometimes a "Sister" or two would be on the premises as well. I really thought the place ran better. Was the slightly more formal language a factor? I'd say, probably yes.

A weekend camping trip (officially it got down to 1 degree Saturday night, fortunately we were in a cabin but it was still pretty chilly) got in the way of me answering several posts, but I couldn't let Adrian's remarks about the "Inquisition" go without a little historical footnote here. It is one thing to say that people should not use past atrocities to justify more recent ones. Of course I agree with that. Frankly I have never heard of anyone trying to downplay any of the great crimes of the 20th century by referring to the Inquisitions (Spanish or otherwise), but if they do (or did), then Adrian, I'm on your side on that one. But it's an entirely different thing to downplay the Spanish Inquisition itself, by limiting it to a few thousand deaths that you say are estimated by "most historians," and the dubious claim that there was no torture. From what I have read (in a couple of books on Jewish history) there were far more deaths than that and there was indeed torture. I think the Spanish Inquisition also needs to be looked not simply as a series of trials (some by torture) and executions for the crime of "heresy," but as part of what it was: A series of measures designed to destroy the Jewish culture in Spain and other countries. There were hundreds of thousands of forced conversions to Christianity, with many of those who refused to convert being massacred, and many of those who DID convert then being subjected to the "Inquisition" to question whether they had really converted. If they were convicted of heresy, they were burned alive. Finally in 1492 and at other times, the remaining Jews in Spain were exiled. There also is historical evidence that in addition to religious zealotry, another main goal of the Inquisition as well as the exiles was to allow the Church (and the state) to confiscate the lands and property of the Jews, both converted and unconverted. And let's not even talk about the Crusades...

I meant to put this in the previous post, but I hit the wrong button. My basis for saying that there are home-schooled boys in troops is not just from this forum. At least two of the boys in my son's troop are home-schooled, and their father is an assistant scoutmaster.

I did not deal with the "Lone Scout" issue before and I just want to say, I don't think it changes anything one way or the other. The key word here is "eligible." A boy being home-schooled may be eligible for the Lone Scout program but he also is eligible to be in a troop. The question is, what is the best thing for the boy. All other things being equal, the boy probably is going to get more of the program the way it is intended to be delivered, in a troop (or pack.) (I say "all other things being equal" because it is conceivable that Dad is a former SM and has Silver Beaver and Woodbadge, while all of the local troops are poorly run and failing; but assuming that is NOT the situation, I think being in a unit is better than being a Lone Scout.) In other words, home-schooled is not synonymous with Lone Scout. Over the time I have been in this forum, several people have identified themselves as home-schooling their children, and yet ALL of the boys in question appeared to be (or have been) in a unit. I don't think I have ever seen anyone in this forum identify themselves as a Lone Scout or the parent of a Lone Scout.

When you say "our home schooling program," are you referring to just your own family, or do you mean a group of parents who get together to "home school" their children? (I have heard of this, and to me it starts to resemble a very small private school, at least on a part time basis.) Depending on the numbers and ages (and genders) of the students you could potentially be able to form your own unit. Of course, any boy of the correct age can join a unit without regard to their "schooling" situation. Or, are you talking about using the materials and methods of Scouting IN your home schooling program (which is actually closer to what you said) without the students necessarily being BSA members? I have heard of that being done also, mostly in online forums.

Andrew, what I think you (and all of us) can learn from this thread is that there IS no "prevailing method." And when I say "learn," I mean it, because if I had been asked to guess at the beginning it would have been that in the Scouting context, the use of Mr. (etc.) by youth to refer to adults was nearly universal. Apparently that is not the case. Every person and group has their own "culture," I guess. My personal feeling is that nobody should be offended by being addressed in a MORE formal way, and then if you want to be called by your first name, "correct" the person and that should be it. In a one on one conversation that would be it. However, I have an issue with it when a "group" is present. If one leader has the boys refer to him by first name (including "Mr. Joe") then the boys have a right to be confused when another leader insists on being called Mr. Smith. As I think I said before, the uncertainty for me comes in when a very young adult is addressing someone older. When I turned 18, the adults in the troop were still "Mr." to me, and I was not in for very long at that stage so I never had to deal with when Mr. Smith becomes Bob. In college and law school, it was pretty clear, professors and deans were Professor and Dean, until they said otherwise, which some of them did. In the legal profession the protocol is pretty clear, in court and in any setting that is being transcribed, formal titles are used. When I am calling another attorney on the phone for the first time I generally do use Mr./Ms. etc. and 99.9 percent of the time I will get back "Call me Charlie" or whatever, but at least the person has been shown respect and can decide for themselves what they want me to call them. And then there is the one person who calls me Dr. Lastname, ONLY around other people (we are fellow school board members), and basically as a joke. Technically it is correct because my "law degree" is a Juris Doctor but it is not customary (at least where I am) for attorneys to use "Dr." It is so non-customary as to be somewhat misleading to go by "Dr." if you do not also have a Ph.D., M.D. or something else that would connote a "real" Dr. But I digress...

Ed, I think I've explained that to you about five times. I'm not going to do it again. But you can keep saying that the First Amendment does not say anything about separation of church and state, and your statement will continue to be irrelevant to the decision of any court in any "establishment of religion" case. Not wrong, just irrelevant.

Neil says: I'm not sure how it is Scoutlike to be essentially sitting around in a circle saying "Yup, liberals sure are condescending, aren't they?" I'm not sure either. There might even be some people who think that conservatives nowadays can be arrogant and self-righteous There sure might.

But Captainron, you still have not said what the "experienced Scouter" actually DID -- other than to sit there in a uniform with knots all over it. In your second post you say he was wearing silver loops "leftover" from a previous council. If you mean that he does not currently hold a council or district-level position, that is a somewhat different story. His uniform should be consistent with his current position. This may imply that he was in fact TRYING to upstage the Cubmaster. But unless he actually DID something to upstage the Cubmaster, I don't see why the Cubmaster should have felt upstaged or intimidated. That is the product of inexperience.

OK, a lot of people die in wars. That's bad. People should make nice and not fight. But I am not sure what you are suggesting to remedy the situation. If you are hinting at the answer in the title of the thread, "Death by Government," I am not sure what that means. Do you think eliminating government is going to end war? People would probably kill each other even more. Unfortunately it seems that there is something in our human nature that makes some people put their own interests, desires, fears, ideology, whatever, ahead of the preservation of human life. I think human nature also prompts people to band together to form states and governments, if only for protection against other states and non-state threats. So if your implication is that if we suddenly adopt some anarchist utopia, all the problems will go away, I disagree, and I don't that such a utopia is going to happen, at least not for a long time. By the way, I noticed that the entire Middle East conflict (or series of conflicts) does not seem to be on this list. A lot of people have died in that one too, though it may not reach the numbers of the other entries on your list.

So as of today,the scouts in San Diego still meet on their regular nights, at the regular time and learn the same values that they learned yesterday. They still do the same activities, lead by the same leaders who all agreed to the same values. They can even still use the same land. Only now they use it under the same conditions as any other citizen of San Diego. So what's wrong with this picture? Nothing that I can see. Well, as the complete story (posted in the other thread but not in this one) makes clear, "as of today" nothing has changed at all, even the status of the lawsuit. It seems to me that all has really changed is who the parties to the lawsuit are. It was the ACLU against the city and Boy Scout council, now it is just the ACLU against the council. Pending the outcome of the lawsuit the council is still using the land for $1 a year. But, Bob, if your meaning was that the Boy Scouts would not be affected if they finally lose the $1 a year lease, that is not at all clear. I have to wonder whether the SE of that council would agree with you. Having an exclusive lease to use a substantial tract of land for free (essentially), and having what other groups would have -- probably either a non-exclusive right to use the land on a rotational or as-scheduled basis, or the "right" to pay full market rent for the land -- is hardly the same thing. If your council suddenly had to share its camp with every other group in the world, it would affect your program. That is not an issue when a council owns a camp, but obviously it is an issue when you are simply one of a number of groups asking for permits to use public land. As for your statements about "values", this is just your usual spin on the issue. What is really happening is that units are, if the issue of a gay leader actually comes up, being forced by national to violate what may may be their actual values, to impose a "value" that is not a "value" of the BSA. Exclusion of gays is a political and religious doctrine, but it is not a value of the BSA, despite what the current leaders of the BSA say. I do think that it will be intersting to see the condition of the land a few years down the road now that the caretakers have changed. They haven't changed yet. And when and if the BSA does "move out," I agree with your implication that the property probably will not be as well taken care of. It's too bad. It would be worth it, however, if the BSA was sticking by its guns on a policy that actually furthered the values of Scouting. But that is not the case.

SRBeaver, I was wondering the same thing about Bob. I have never seen him be funny before.

I think the whole discussion of "lifestyles" or musicians (and other artists) is sort of pointless. If someone wants to boycott artists based on their lifestyle, that is their right, but I prefer to focus on the art. As for the "role model" aspect, and I am mostly talking about drugs now... look, kids have many influences to choose from, some good, some bad. There is no way to shield them completely from bad role models. It is much more effective to teach them how to make the right choices. And I also wonder, if we were to examine those who have produced various kinds of music, what kind of role models would we find. It almost goes without saying that if you like jazz, some of the artists you listen to were not models of temperance and probity. Even with classical music, I think you'd find some "lifestyle" issues as well, though it is somewhat different because some of the "substances" involved were not yet illegal at the time. And outside of music, artists in general have a way of not conforming to the strictest social standards. And you know what they say about Michelangelo. But it's ok to like his paintings even though he would not be considered a good role model for the values (allegedly) contained in the Scout Oath and Law. But back to the Beatles, I just heard yesterday that an oncologist in New York City, who is (was?) something of a minor celebrity because he does radio ads for his hospital and its pioneering cancer treatments, has lost his job in a Beatles-related incident. It seems that he was George Harrison's doctor in the final stages of George's illness, and that shortly before George's death, the oncologist prevailed on him to autograph a guitar for him. George's family claims that he was taken advantage of in his weakened condition. I was sort of puzzled about this because nobody would begrudge asking someone for an autograph, though I guess it is in rather bad taste to make the request of someone who is dying. What makes this different is probably the value of the signed item. There are probably not very many guitars signed by one of the greatest guitar players in the world, and it becomes an instant "auction house" item. I don't know what it would sell for, but my guess would be in the tens of thousands, especially if it were dated. I guess for a doctor to do that is crossing some sort of line.

I just want to make clear, I still agree with Bob. FOG, I'm just going to ignore you. If all you can do is make personal attacks on me an my "lot" there is no point in discussing anything. I didn't even know I had a "lot." And you really have no idea what I think, other than what I have said.

Heck, even in the classic star trek show they didnt start fires, just point a phaser at a rock, made it red hot and then basked in the glow... Good point, OGE... I guess that in between the better known "Stun" and "Kill" settings was the "Campfire" setting. I bet Captain Archer knows (will know? will have known? future-grammar always messes me up) how to make a real fire, though. He is (will be?) an Eagle Scout.

In my son's troop it is pretty simple, the boys call the adults Mr./Mrs. (Last Name). As in Andrew's troop, adults are on a first-name basis with each other, but not when speaking to the boys. Our SM takes it to the point that when a boy turns 18, if he wishes to continue in the troop, at his next meeting he is given an adult leader application to fill out as an ASM, then the SM introduces him to the boys as a new ASM, and says "He is no longer John, he is Mr. Smith." I have not yet had one of these 18-year-olds call me by my first name, but it would be appropriate, if somewhat jarring at first. It's sort of like, what do you call your mother-in-law when you're first married...