NJCubScouter

male and female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA Something seems curious about this language. I thought that an "adult leader" was someone who was registered with the BSA. Yet it says two adult leaders (one of each gender) but only ONE of whom must be registered. Does that mean that in this sentence, the female "adult leader" could be ANY woman age 21 or other regardless of whether she is actually a "leader" in the crew or not? If that is true, it appears that this female "leader" does not have to be a parent, which is different from non-coed outings. (For outings in general, it is: "Two registered adult leaders, or one registered adult and a parent of a participating Scout, one of whom must be at least 21 years of age or older." Unfortunately, either way, dad does not appear to fill the bill. Maybe he should, maybe in a future version of G2SS he will, but for now he does not. This makes me wonder about the first camping trip my son and I ever went on with his current troop. It was announced as a "family outing" and was a whitewater rafting trip including two nights of camping. Those attending consisted of about 15 Scouts, about five fathers, and one older sister (about age 17 and who I believe is a Girl Scout but not a Venturer.) The girl's father (a troop committee member) and 2 of her brothers were there. I believe she had her own tent and I had the impression that this was not the first time she has been "out" with the troop, and there were no problems. But there were no adult females on the trip at all. That probably was not ok unless there is some special rule for "family outings" which there probably isn't.

I have mostly just watched this discussion bounce back and forth between Bob and others, so at the risk of anything "freezing over" (or maybe just a bit of floating ice in this case), I'll just say this: I agree with Bob. I think a little moderation and rationality is all he is looking for, and all I look for when I discuss gun control with people who talk about "my cold dead hands." I seldom find it. Wanting to have a gun for protection is one thing, but I hope people don't kid themselves into thinking that the protection is total, or that it is a risk-free proportion. More recently the thread has veered off into some of the more "philosophical" aspects of the "cold dead hands" ideology, such as it being necessary for Granny to have her Glock or 22 in order to fend off the invading Soviets. Or something. I agree with Bob about that too. (Oops, I see a pretty solid sheet of ice there now...)

Well, Eamonn, the story about the little boy who fished all week was a good one and worth repeating even if the forum software did it for you. This was something I have tried to follow with my son, who crossed over to a troop in April. When he went to summer camp he was very unsure of himself, partly because he had never been camping without his father before, and here was a whole week away from home. I regarded it as a mixed blessing that they had him (and all the other boys) very tightly scheduled in advance... Tenderfoot requirements Mondays and Tuesday morning, Second Class some other morning, merit badges in the afternoon, instructional swim (which I gladly would have had be his entire week since he is swimming-challenged.) It was good that he had a lot to do and that hopefully he would do some advancement (and maybe even work toward being able to pass Second Class swimming), but I was worried that it would seem too much like school and that he wouldn't have enough fun. So when I arrived to pick him up, I made sure that our first discussion was "Did you have fun" and "What did you do," (which unlike the answer I get when I ask that about school, was not just "I forget.") Only later on the way home did I ask him about advancement. Oh, and he did have fun, but as a result of circumstances including other leaders always seeming to be off somewhere on weekends, he has not been on a camping trip without me since. Trying to be a leader for a group that includes my son, as distinct from being his father, is an interesting challenge, but I guess that is for another part of the forum and another thread.

Scoutingagain says: I think we need to remember that those who believe fundamentally different things, all equally have the right to those beliefs and I don't believe, we are in a position to judge those beliefs as right or wrong. We are free to choose are own beliefs and have the conviction that they are correct. That doesn't mean others are incorrect. It just means we believe something different to be true. I agree with those statements, but the reason for some of the contentiousness in this forum over matters of religion (which includes the issue of excluding gay people) is that there are some people in this forum who don't seem to agree with those statements. There are people who rarely let the word "believe" get near their statements about religion, because they don't think of their religion as a matter of belief (which could be wrong), but as a matter of truth (which cannot be wrong.) Of course, I could be wrong.

I don't see the relevance of whether people eat cow brains or spinal tissue. First of all, it's my understanding that the beef industry uses the remains of dairy cows in feed for other cows (mixed with grains and whatever.) I heard a congressman on the radio the other day talking about banning this practice. But if it is going on now, I strongly suspect that those who prepare the feed are a lot less particular about what cow-parts they use to feed other cows, than FuzzyBear's butcher would be in deciding what cow-parts to offer for sale to human beings. Second of all, assuming that this disease can indeed be transmitted from cows to people, what makes you think that people can only contract it by eating cow-parts that show the physical affects of the disease. I'm not trying to be alarmist, but I don't think there's any guarantee that a cow showing symptoms in its nervous system is not also "carrying" the disease in its other tissues. Keep in mind that there are diseases that can be contracted though casual contact (maybe just being breathed on) with someone who is a "carrier" of a disease and who has no symptoms of the disease at all. So I don't see how you can be sure that the "disease agent" (whatever it may be) is neatly confined to certain parts of the cow. As I said, I am not an alarmist on this. I have not stopped eating beef and don't plan to. But there's no point in pretending that there is NO risk... it's just that for me, it is one of those risks that (at this point at least) has not reached the level that would cause me to change what I do -- just like I haven't stopped driving even though people get killed in traffic accidents.

Rooster, madly spinning the facts, says: However, when Al Sharpton steps up to the plate, the left embrace him like one of their own. If that is true, the "left" (whoever exactly that is) has a strange way of embracing someone. Al Sharpton is at 5 percent in nationwide polls of Democrats. As a result he stands a good chance of getting NO delegates at the convention. I suspect he actually will get a few delegates from New York and maybe a few others from other urban areas. In all likelihood he will get less than 1 percent of the total delegates nationwide. That's an embrace? The other possibility, of course, is that you are right, the "left" is embracing Sharpton... which would mean that approximately 5 percent of the Democratic Party is comprised of the "left." Which leaves 95 percent for... what? The middle? (I'm not saying I would break it down that way, but as usual, your simplistic and inaccurate labeling skews things right from the beginning. We have a "spectrum" in this country that includes both parties, rather than the simple categories that apparently suit your partisan purposes.)

But as a general rule, Republicans police their own. Case in point - David Duke hasnt gained much ground since his coming out party a few years ago - YET, Al Sharpton is a Presidential candidate. A candidate that the likes of Howard Dean, John "F" Kerry, Richard Gephardt, and others take seriously. Why? Because they're pandering for every possible vote - no matter what the cost. Um, welcome back to Issues and Politics, Rooster. And you return in fine fashion. Your comparison of David Duke and Al Sharpton, showing how Republicans "police their own" while Democrats supposedly don't, is not only a misinterpretation of the facts, it is the exact opposite of the truth. David Duke, who was supposedly "policed" by the Republicans, actually got 43.5 percent of the vote for the U.S. Senate from Louisiana. He received a majority of the white vote. I am fairly certain that if I were able to find a breakdown by party for that election, it would show that he received a majority of the Republican vote, and understandably so, because he was the Republican candidate. And, incidentally, he was once elected to the Louisiana state legislature, as a Republican. Has Al Sharpton ever been elected to anything, as a candidate of any party? No. Has he ever been nominated to any office by the Democratic Party? No. He has run in local Democratic primaries in New York and has always lost. Is he going to be the Democratic nominee for president? There's not a chance in the world. The nationwide polls have shown him with 3 to 5 percent of the Democratic vote, which by interesting coincidence is about ONE-TENTH the percentage received by Republican candidate David Duke for U.S. Senate. As for why the other Democratic candidates are treating Sharpton like a candidate, it's because he's a candidate. They are also treating Dennis Kucinich (who by the way, is probably to the left of Al Sharpton) as a candidate, even though he is at about 1 or 2 percent. But these are candidates for a nomination. They are not elected office holders and party nominees for higher office, as David Duke was.

Laurie, I'm guessing that your husband did not expect the answer to the question to include boys with their arms impaled on a steel rod or Bob's apparently-dead co-worker and a True Story of Scouters in Action. (Do they still have that in Boy's Life?)

OK, I was going to respond to the last few posts, but you know what, let this thread be the land of make-believe. Just make up as much stuff as you want. It ought to be interesting.

Scoutingagain says: Wasn't Manson a Beatles fan? I'm not sure if the word "fan" quite fits someone who has his murderous gang write the titles of a group's songs on the wall, in the blood of their victims. There has to be some other category for that. I believe it was John Lennon who was quoted at the time, saying something like "Couldn't he have just left us out of it?" The Beatles were also interviewed about Manson's elaborate interpretations of the songs in question, and their basic conclusion was that he was "cracked." As in crazy -- not legally insane, just crazy. He evidently thought, for example, that "Sexy Sadie" (written by John) referred to one of Manson's own followers, who John didn't even know. (As a matter of fact, John later said he intended the song as a jab at the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and the title was originally "Maharishi," but John didn't want to get sued. Any further discussion on that subject would obviously take us beyond the syllabus for today's class.)

Thanks FOG, there's another example.

Bob, as to the SPL staggering with the steel rod through his arm, bleeding, all I can say is: (1) Wow, and (2) Forget the New Scout Patrol, I'd be curious to see how a bunch of adult leaders, all trained in first aid, would react to the identical situation. I have a suspicion that in many troops, their reaction would not precisely match "E.R." (3) Same as (2) but with a bunch of the most experienced youth, Eagle and Life, all with First Aid and Emergency Preparedness MB. Again, the reaction might be something other than "textbook" and I wonder whether this group would score a bit higher on the "don't panic" scale as the adults. To tell you the truth I am not sure how well I would do if I thought it was real. I'd like to think I would be cool, calm and collected, but I don't know...

It seems to me that the person who wrote this article is engaging in the same kind of name-calling he is complaining about. Same goes for people in this forum who group a whole bunch of people together with labels like "lefties" or "liberal condescension."

Um, Ed? If you don't know what pants are -- not just Scout pants, but any pants -- please remind me not to visit any of your troop meetings.

One of the specific things I remember from some leader training somewhere is that the verbs used in the advancement requirements are all there for a reason, and they are carefully chosen. Discuss means discuss, show means show, demonstrate means demonstrate, and so on. My interpretation of "show" as opposed to "demonstrate" is that if the requirement says "show" first aid for a cut, you can "pretend" to wash the cut and you can put on a "pretend" band aid, but you can't just talk about washing it and putting on a band aid. Now, there is a certain amount of common sense to be applied here. I wouldn't actually make a boy pretend to wash, unless I thought there were some question that he knew how to do it. As long as I see that the boy knows what to do, "show" is satisfied, in my opinion. In other words, some amount of "acting" is sufficient to "show." This is all my opinion and my understanding. Does anyone disagree with this?

Commando, I am not sure about your purpose in some of these "joking" comments. I consider myself to have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do not really "get" the humor in some parts of your list here. But for now, let me just ask about one of them: Do you think that volunteer Scouters don't wear uniform pants?

I suppose I run a risk here of hijacking this thread, but under the circumstances it would be a mercy-hijack. My last post concluded with a sentence about a certain BSA policy, and having re-read it (and my computer apparently being Edit-challenged as far as this forum goes), I just want to clarify what I said because I can already imagine someone jumping on it: I agree with the BSA that adult leaders should be good role models for youth. My disagreement with the current BSA leadership deals with exactly what "good role model" means in one particular situation.

First to Adrian: I did not characterize anything falsely, nor am I required to abide by your dictionary. In other other thread I showed you a dictionary definition of "hypocrisy" that fit my usage. Whether it is a public figure or someone posting on this board, when someone holds other people to a different standard than their own conduct, I call that person a hypocrite, unless they have openly (and credibly) renounced their past conduct. You can call the person whatever you'd like. Second, to FOG: So basically what you are saying is that the responsibilities of role-model-hood are limited to those who have placed themselves in the public spotlight. That's an interesting statement coming from a Scouter, if indeed that is what you are. This being the Issues and Politics Forum, I can also say that I find your statement especially interesting coming from someone who supports a BSA policy that excludes certain people on the basis that they are poor role models.

Adrian, I mentioned which thread FOG's post was in only for purposes of identification, so that people could go back and look at it if they wished. I did not mean to get into that discussion again. And, regardless of why he said what he said, FOG's comment was relevant to his self-contradictory comment here. As for what "we learned" about hypocrisy in that thread, I'll tell you that what I learned was that you use a narrow definition of "hypocrisy" that I disagree with. In the dozens of articles I have seen since that situation came to light, the vast majority have used the word "hypocrisy," so it would seem that "common usage" is on my side. Now, if you'd like to debate the prescriptive vs. descriptive theory of dictionary writing, you can do that... but probably not in this forum, and definitely not with me.

Just a few points here. The terror alert system http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=29 was created after 9/11/01, so the answer is no, there would have been no orange or any other color alerts in 2000. It was not thought necessary at that time to have a nationwide "graded" alert system for terror attacks, or any other safety conditions for that matter. (The military has "defcon" but that is for military use and I don't think that changes have been officially publicized.) While it is true that most of the nation was recently upgraded from yellow to orange, the New York City metropolitan area has not been at less than orange since the system was created. When the rest of the nation has been at yellow, NYC has been at orange, and when the rest of the nation has been "upgraded" to orange ("high"), NYC has been considered to be at what is usually called "heightened" alert or in the terms of radio talk show hosts, "orange plus." I have never been sure whether this covers the area where I live, but since my home is approximately a one-hour drive from "ground zero" (if there were no traffic), it wouldn't seem to matter much. On 9/11/01 itself and in the following days, my area felt very much under attack. What all this actually means to our everyday lives two years later, I don't know. If you look at the homeland security web site, it appears that most of the actual "action" to be taken at different "colors" are actions by the government, not by individuals, families or businesses. When we go from yellow to orange or orange-plus, I don't think I am doing anything differently. As for whether "life has changed" since 9/11/01, I personally think it has somewhat, mostly in intangible ways. The "feeling" is different. Maybe that is partly a function of where I live. But most people are not panicked, you just try to be more "careful out there," whatever that actually means.

Absolutely right, Acco. I had let the line about the Beatles being atheists go without comment, but it is ridiculous when applied to George in particular. For awhile after the Beatles broke up, half his songs were about God in one way or another, so much so that I remember discussing it with one of my college roommates how it would be nice if he made a song about something else. (Maybe not always "God" as conceived of by some in this forum, but God nevertheless. And the song "My Sweet Lord" shows that he wasn't really choosing among "Gods," hallelujah, hare krishnah, it was all the same to him. And he did do some religious songs with no Hindu imagery or Indian music at all, I have to admit not being sure of the name of the song I am thinking of, it may be "Give Me Love." The whole song is really a prayer set to a pop melody.) And by the way, it seems to me that the same person who criticized the Beatles for "casual sex" posted something in the thread about Strom Thurmond to the effect that what Strom did was ok because he, the poster (ok, it was FOG) had had "fun" (I think that was the term) with a number of "girls" who he would not have brought home to mother. Or something like that. It didn't really have anything to do with the subject of the thread and was a lot more than I wanted to know about FOG's personal life, but I did not expect the same person to come back 2 or 3 weeks later criticizing anyone about "casual sex." Maybe I should have expected it. At least get your stories straight.

I find it difficult to believe the part about it being easier to retain separate lodges within a merged council because of the separate numbering system. That sounds like real bureaucrat-speak to me. Are we really to believe that nobody at national has a list of lodges by council? Or that even if they don't, such a list could not be compiled from information in the hands of the regions, areas or other subdivisions? Or even if NO such lists exists, somebody in national has a list of councils with addresses, and somebody else has a list of lodges with addresses, and all they'd have to do is count them up by state and see where the numbers don't match. There might be some cross-state-boundary councils that might create confusion, but how many of those could there be? I'd say that at the absolute most, creating a spreadsheet of lodges by council (assuming it doesn't already exist) would be two days' work, including phone calls to clear up any ambiguities. The other reason, that the numbers of the lodges no longer have historical significance, at least seems more plausible. It still seems kind of odd, eliminating a numbering system because it has no historical significance. By that line of reasoning you could also argue that the lodge NAMES in merged councils have no historical significance. As far as I know, all the merged councils in New Jersey (and there was a big merger wave in 1999-2000 which eliminated five councils just in my half of the state) now have a new OA lodge that has a name different from the one that existed in any of the predecessor councils. What significance does the new name have? An argument could be made that in order to avoid confusion, the Native American names could be abandoned and the lodges could just be the "Northern New Jersey Council OA Lodge." Not quite as poetic, you say? True, but I guess some people find some poetry in the numbers as well. Someone mentioned Lodge 1, and I agree nobody is going to want to stop using it. Even if national requires dropping the "old numbers" from the flaps, I would be surprised if that council's new flap did not have the numeral 1 on it somewhere.

FOG says: Why should I give money to someone whose lifestyle or politics I don't like? To help him buy more drugs? The answer to the first question is, if you really think it matters, you shouldn't, if you don't want to. If I don't think it matters, well, then, it doesn't matter (to me). Do you apply this to everything? Do you ask the owner of a grocery store who he voted for in the last election before deciding whether to shop there? As for the second question quoted above, if we're still talking about the Beatles, I suspect the only "drugs" purchased by the two surviving Beatles these days is for the treatment of arthritis and other things that some people in their 60s have to deal with. If you did buy a Beatles CD today, I am not sure who would get the royalties for the performing rights anyway. It is probably a pretty long and complicated list with some corporate fingers in the pie, Paul and Ringo, the estates of John and George, and various other claimants. Yoko would probably get some $ so that isn't a big plus for me, on the other hand hopefully George's widow is getting some $ as well. Oh, and Paul just became a father again, though with what he already has he can probably buy all the Pampers they need.

I hesitate to even post because I know FOG posts things like this just to annoy people and to see what kind of anguished reactions he can provoke. I suspect it's all an act, for all we know FOG has every Beatles' CD, the Beatles sheet-music wallpaper and the Ringo night-light from when he was 6. (I just made the last two up, I suspect that at least the last one, or something like it, did exist and would be worth $ if you had it now. I remember having a Beatles lunch box, I wish I had it now.) But, despite the fact that this thread is not to be taken seriously, there actually is a point lurking here somewhere. When I listen to the Beatles or any other group, or watch actors on tv or in the movies, I never think, "gosh, what good role models." Or bad. I either like the entertainment or I don't. One annoying thing about our culture today is that there is so much intense focus on the private lives of people in entertainment, and the entertainers are not innocent victims, they cleverly let us know what they are doing so we will pay more attention to them. I heard one pundit on the radio today, saying to please call in and give suggestions about what we can do so that we never have to hear the name "Paris Hilton" again. I'd love to join that campaign, but she's just the name of the month. I am sick of hearing about Tom and Nicole and Ben and J-Lo and Tommy and Pamela (I know, that's old news, People Magazine has probably thrown out those files already) and Whoever and Whoever. I don't even want to know who is going out with who or marrying or divorcing or what tapes are on the Internet or anything, but it's like a constant barrage. I sign on to America Online and see right on the welcome screen, So and so is divorcing so and so, and then on the bottom of the screen, oh by the way, three more dead in Iraq. But all the celebrity gossip news must have an audience, or it wouldn't be out there. That supply is meeting some kind of demand. So, as a New Year's resolution, maybe if any of you actually care about who is sleeping with who, just stop caring for a year and maybe it will go away. I can't take it any more. As a final note, if you look at almost 50 years of rock stars and what we (unfortunately) know about their private lives, the Beatles actually come across as pretty tame. John probably less so than the others, but consider at the time of his death he had been a devoted family man for years. Compare that to someone like Gene Simmons of Kiss, I heard a bit of an interview with him recently, he is probably in his 50's and still inviting his female fans up to his hotel room after shows -- and inviting the fan to bring her 19-year-old daughter along as well. I don't want to know, but alas, I know anyway...

(Studiously ignoring the BobAndFOGandEd Show...) TwoCub, when I saw the top of your post I thought that maybe your cat or 2-year-old niece or someone had gotten hold of your keyboard. (Based on a true story: When my son was about 2, there were a couple of times when I would be on America Online IM'ing with someone, and step out of the room for a second, and he'd toddle up and type out a message looking something like what you typed, and somehow manage to hit "send." Much to the temporary confusion of the person on the other end.) Anyway, glad I could pick up on Eamonn's Beatles reference and provide some diversion. I did also get a new Beatles book, though it's only new to me, it was published more than 10 years ago. (The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn, it is a day-by-day journal of everything the Beatles did on stage, in the studio, on tv and radio etc. etc.) Let's see, what can we pick out. Ok, 40 years ago today the Beatles appeared at Astoria Cinema in London as part of their 1963-64 Chrismtas show. Let's see... on the date of my tenth birthday, they... oops. Well, they didn't do anything. But the day before that, they were at Twickenham Film Studios filming the "All Together Now" sequence for the end of "Yellow Submarine." Opening to a random page... on June 24, 1966, they appeared at Circus-Krone-Bau., Marsstrasse, Munich, West Germany. (Remember West Germany?) ManyIrons, I think every U.S. Beatles fan who accumulates the CD's (as I am too) is surprised when learning that many of the CD's are not of the albums that were in the stores when we were kids. Though I guess about 10 years ago someone gave me a book that explained the whole thing, so I learned about it all at once and not gradually. When the decision was made to put out the CD's in the late 80's, they went with the British albums and versions, with one exception. "Magical Mystery Tour" was never an album in the UK, and was put together by Capitol Records in the U.S. from a combination of the TV show soundtrack songs and a collection of recent hit songs that had not yet been released on an album (including "All You Need is Love" and "Strawberry Fields Forever." The CD-makers made the obviously correct decision that this belonged on CD. But several other albums, like "Yesterday and Today" and "Hey Jude," turn out to have been U.S.-only compilations, and the songs from them are on other CD's. (They dealt with the singles, most of which were not on UK albums at all, by putting out Beatles Past Masters Volumes 1 and 2.) It was something of a shock to learn that the first album that I ever bought, "Meet the Beatles," isn't even an "official" Beatles album -- it was the result of Capitol taking the UK album "With the Beatles", adding some songs and subtracting others. They did the same with Rubber Soul and Revolver, though by that time the names of the albums had become distinctive enough that it no longer made sense to change them for the U.S. market. But when I pull out my old warped vinyl of Rubber Soul, "Nowhere Man" is nowhere (heh heh) to be found, and yet there it is on the CD. (It is either on Yesterday and Today or the U.S. version of Revolver.) Starting with Sgt. Pepper the UK albums were released unchanged in the US, but there still had to be "extra" albums released in the US. And to bring us almost back to the beginning of the Beatles sub-thread, there are now 3 quite different versions of the great song "Across the Universe" on CD. One is on the "regular" Let it Be with all the orchestration, one is on Past Masters 2, pre-orchestration but with bird and animal sounds added because it was the Beatles' contribution to a World Wildlife Fund fund-raising album, and now the (heh heh) stripped-down version on "Let it Be (Naked.") And I, too, wish I had the original albums in their wrappers. Oh well...