NJCubScouter

Just to make it clear, I posted my last message before seeing Rooster's. If I am going to respond point by point, it is going to have to be later. I do note that Rooster's is the first post in this thread to make a partisan point out of this situation, which is something that I specifically avoided doing. Rooster's post actually helps me win the second half of the bet I had with myself, because while I figured FOG would be the first to disagree with me, I also bet that someone would mention Robert Byrd and make a partisan point out of that. I listen to conservative talk shows on the radio

Here we go with the dictionary again. First of all, the specific word isn't necessarily the point. In public, Thurmond was THE leading supporter of racial segregation and discrimination, but he engaged in relations with at least one black woman (really a girl in this case) and apparently took no precautions against bringing into the world a child who would have virtually no contact with her father for her entire life. Virtually no contact, that is, other than seeing and hearing him in the media, advocating that people like HER be kept in second-class citizenship. Hunt alluded to that aspec

FOG, and your dating history and motivations (which I really didn't want to know about) are relevant to the actions of a famous segregationist who slept with (and fathered a child with) one of the people he said should not be allowed to associate with "his people," is relevant how, exactly? I do have to thank you, though. I had a bet with myself on who would be the first to disagree with me that Strom Thurmond was a hypocrite, and I had you to win. I lost the other part of the bet, though, because I thought that whoever was the first to disagree would actually say something relevant.

Since this is, after all, the "Issues and Politics" forum and we have not really had much "politics" recently, I decided I couldn't let this one go by. I always enjoy the exposure of hypocrisy, and in the past few days there has been a wonderful example of this, though done posthumously. In 1948, when he was running for president, Strom Thurmond said in a public speech: I want to tell you that theres not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into ou

I just realized that this thread started out talking about a troop where you can't make Eagle until you are 17, and now is talking about the possibility of a boy making Eagle at 9! Someone before mentioned the Twilight Zone... I can hear the music...

Neil: If I understand your post correctly, these 9 and 10 year old Eagles are theoretical possibilities based on boys who actually finished grades at school at young ages; but they did not actually make Eagle at those ages, right? I have posted about this before, the idea of boys crossing over just past their tenth birthday, or age 9 or even earlier, because they were considered to be 1, 2 or even 3 grades higher in school than they would "normally" be. I think the BSA should consider closing this "loophole." I have written about a situation I know of in which a boy was "old enough" to

I am not an expert in the Girl Scout program. I had two daughters in the Girl Scouts, both of whom quit what seems like a long time ago. (One of them was a first-year Cadette, I believe, and the other was a Brownie, when they both decided within a month of each other to give it up.) I therefore have no reason to doubt that the GSUSA girl-led emphasis is appropriate for their program. I also think that the Boy Scouts does not need to introduce boy-led that early. Through the Bear year, adult-led works fine. The BSA might consider incorporating some degree of boy-led into the Webelos p

First of all, I realized that I misspelled my own spelling. I usually write it as "Hanukkah" with 2 k's. Some people only write it with one. I have also seen it with 2 n's which may get us up to 16 possible spellings though I don't think many people use 2 n's. And from my long-ago and brief study of Hebrew, it is my recollection that that language seldom (if ever) uses double letters (that is, Hebrew letters) so I am not sure how the letters got doubled in English. Davej, just for the sake of historical accuracy, the events in the story of Hanukkah took place in the 160's B.C. (I had to

SPL T 15: First of all, on behalf of all those who celebrate Hanukah, thank you. Second of all, Jewish people spell it about 5 different ways ourselves. My preference is Hanukah, but Chanukah is also popular. Then, once the beginning is settled on, there are people who will double the "k" or leave off the "h." I guess if you multiply it out that is probably 8 choices though not all of them are actually seen. There may even be others I haven't seen. The same problem exists for many other words that were originally in the Hebrew alphabet (such as my last name, for another exam

Big Dog says: Did I hear that one of our soldiers was about to drop a grenade down that hole b4 he saw something? That could have saved a lot of trouble. It might have saved "trouble" in the sense of having to hold, try and punish the guy, and probably get criticism from other nations along the way (actually it has already started because the Brits don't want to participate in a process that involves the death penalty.) However, I think it is much better overall that we got him alive. Not to be too gruesome, but if that soldier had lobbed the grenade in there, convincing the nation

I just want to pick out a fairly trivial aspect of this that caught my eye. Something was said about a unit being a "thorn in the side" of council, and apparent pride at being the thorn unit. It reminds me of when I got involved as an active Cub Scout parent and then den leader, and gradually figured out that the then-leaders of the pack loved to be a thorn in the side of the council and district, like routinely ignoring communications; no training or attendance at RT; skipping things like Scouting for Food; making a spectacle of the pack at Cub Camporees by (among other things) having campf

I personally think that the sky would not fall, nor the mountains crumble to the sea (name that tune) -- nor, to the point, would the BSA program be adversely affected in any way -- if there were a place on the adult leader uniform designated for one to wear a small, unobtrusive pin (maybe the "mother's pin" with a colored backing or something) signifying the highest rank that one earned as a Boy Scout (or old-time Explorer, Venturer, Sea Scout, etc.) Maybe it could be a plain white knot (with no actual "knot" that the pin would be attached to (it would have to be smaller than the "mother's p

Well, Hunt, I did not mean to start a semantic debate. The article that I quoted agrees with me, and in the portions that I did not quote (see link), it draws a distinction between "opinion" and "belief," the first one being based on facts and evidence, the second one not. That is a distinction that I have always gone by, even before I found that article earlier today. Maybe some people don't make that distinction. It doesn't matter. I do know that ScoutParent's dictionary definitions do not contradict what I said. I will acknowledge that I could have been more clear in my original s

ScoutParent (and Rooster too I guess, since you decided to jump in): If you are referring to my statement "opinions have to have some basis in fact," the dictionary definitions you cite do not contradict my statement at all. They support it. What I am saying is that an opinion based on false or nonexistent facts is worthless. To use an example from your post, ScoutParent, if I am asked to give an opinion on Haiti, and I say I like it because it is warm there, and you say you don't like it because it is too hot there, those are our opinions and there is no point in debating them.

Rooster, yes, we both have strong opinions, and we are each entitled to them. But opinions have to have some basis in fact, and none of us are entitled to our own facts.

ScoutParent, if you want to tell yourself that the readers of this forum saw me "spit and sputter," I suppose that is your privilege. However, from my perspective, what the readers (and I'm mainly talking about the ones who don't post) have seen is you refusing to defend your statement or to answer any questions about it. And from that, they can draw their own conclusions about what was really behind your statement. Anyone could have asked you those questions; if it wasn't me, if it was someone who never posted here before, what excuse would you have used then?

Mark says: Agree or disagree, makes no matter - I love ya man! (And no, that doesn't indicate a softening on my position on the gay issue! LOL) LOL back atcha, and you didn't need the disclaimer, I took your comment in the spirit with which it was intended. Agree new adults' packs should also be inspected. We do that. I think I either read or wrote something in a confusing manner. I was not writing about new adults' packs, and if someone else was writing about adults' packs, I missed it. I have no problem with an older boy (an experienced cold-weather camper or backpack

Push it. Absolutely. For the reasons eisely and Mark said. (Hey, I'm glad I can agree with you guys sometimes!) Just this past weekend (that is yesterday and the day before) I went on a "cold weather camping trip" and we did NOT have a pack check beforehand -- but on the other hand, we were IN a cabin, with protection against the wind, and a wood-burning stove. (It still got pretty cold.) And in a real pinch, our vehicles were within sight on the bottom of the hill. But if you are definitely not using the cabin, I think the pack checks are a must. I'd also add, for boys who have never

Earlier I wrote a sentence (actually a phrase at the end of a sentence) that said this about the persons nominated by the current president and confirmed by the Senate with no opposition from Democrats: I find it difficult to believe that with G.W. Bush doing the appointing, some (if not most) of those nominees have been "conservative Christians" and/or outspoken opponents of "abortion rights." when I actually meant this: I find it difficult to believe that with G.W. Bush doing the appointing, some (if not most) of those nominees have not been "conservative Christians" and/or ou

I'm just picking out one subject here, boy-run boards of review. Of course, for those of us who were involved in Scouting at the time of the "big change" in 1972-1973, we know that Scouting adopted boy-run boards of review through First Class. They still existed when I left my old troop in 1976, but no longer existed when I next picked up a handbook in 2002. My guess would be that this went "out" in the late 70s or early 80's when a number of the other early-70's innovations (like taking Camping MB off the Eagle-required list) were un-done. In case my reason for pointing this out is un

OK, I didn't see Bob's latest post until after I posted mine. We have very similar committee-role lists. His basically provides the 2 I was missing. We do not have a Webelos resource position (right now this is being done by the troop secretary who as it happens as also a Webelos leader in one of the nearby packs, and has sons in both, but that will have to be looked at when her second son crosses over in the spring; and our camping/activities person also is the Cubmaster of another nearby pack) or a chaplain (at least not that I have seen; the IH is a minister and attends COH's but nothing

Just as an aside here about the 13-member troop committee, I wouldn't call it massive. If I were a CC in a troop with 34 active Scouts (as opposed to just 30+ on the charter some of whom show up once in awhile, as "my" troop has), I wouldn't mind having 12 other committee members and wouldn't have any trouble finding stuff for them to do. If you had 7 active boys, 13 would seem kind of massive, because for one thing, your most likely committee volunteers are parents of boys in the troop. But for 34 active boys, 13 committee members is not so massive. What do they do? There are a lot o

Very funny, FOG. I said "been to", not "been in", though I guess technically I was "in" it, for a few hours. (Fort Dix federal prison in New Jersey, where the very large rolls of razor ribbon on all sides suggest an un-Club Fed-like apporach.) Counting all levels of government, I have probably been to (or in) about 20 different prisons, jails, "correctional facilities", "detention centers", "holding areas" and "hospitals" (the kind where the "patients" can't check out). I always had a "visitors" badge, though. But I think you already figured that out.

Rooster says: It shouldn't matter how a jurist feels about a controversial issue or even he or she takes a public stance. What matters is whether or not he or she will hold up the law as it is written and/or interpret it reasonably per the Constitution. Well then Rooster, I think you should get yourself elected to Congress so you can help change how both parties deal with nominees of a a president of the opposing party. Until then, both the Republicans and the Democrats will continue to question some nominees about their beliefs on certain issues and how those beliefs may affect the

Hunt, I agree. There are a lot of opinions in that article and a lot of "characterization" (I won't call it "twisting") of the facts, but very few actual facts showing that Democratic senators were "persecuting" (or whatever word one wants to use) anyone on the basis of religion. As I said earlier, when religion has even been mentioned, the issue has been the extent to which someone may base their judicial decisions on their religious beliefs instead of on the law. I will say that personally, I don't necessarily approve of every question or every tactic that the Democrats have employed