Jump to content

NJCubScouter

Moderators
  • Posts

    7405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

Everything posted by NJCubScouter

  1. Betting? "I am shocked - SHOCKED! - that gambling is going on in here." (I can't give credit to who wrote it, because I don't know who wrote it. But Claude Rains said it.)
  2. No, one can't conclude that, or at least, I don't. I think that for this purpose, the operative word in my post is "often", while the operative word in yours is "only". Those are two very different words. Although I would say that in its anti-bullying policy, the BSA does seem to focus in large part on the perception of the victim, or as the BSA says, the "target", and not only on the "intent" of the alleged bully. See http://www.scouting.org/filestore/training/pdf/Bullying-What_is_Bullying.pdf. In fact, that document doesn't ever actually mention the "intent" of the alleged bully but says quite a bit about the perceptions of the "target." I think that, in practice, the "intent" of the alleged bully does get taken into account (and it probably is in that document by implication), but it is not the only factor.
  3. The question is, what is the BSA "policy" on that? Is there one, and if not, should there be one? Or should it be left up to the councils? The council in question, with its "wrong attire" comment, seems to be saying that the employees should not have been wearing the sweatshirts with the name of their employer on them. And probably, by extension, they should not have been handing out Hooters paraphernalia to the Cub Scouts. I do not blame these young ladies for doing so, they were most likely following the instructions of their employer and they were on company time. There is also the issue of the Facebook page, on which Hooters (not unsurprisingly) sought publicity for their good deeds. This is really about publicity. It could have been General Motors or TGI Fridays or the Olive Garden, rather than Hooters, and the same issue would be present. It only gets attention in this case because of the "image" of Hooters.
  4. One does, but the above quote is also an example of the fact that snarkiness, meanness and bullying are often in the eye of the beholder, and that some people do not apply the same standards to their own actions as they apply to the actions of others.
  5. I think it depends on who you ask. I think it also depends on what your personal definitions of "politically correct" and "overly politically correct." Maybe it also depends on what you define as the "forum." Technically speaking, the "forum" is just software that allows us to express our thoughts. It is owned by one person, Scouter-Terry, who has established very few firm "rules", together with some instructions for applying those rules (and "enforcing" them when necessary), and he has appointed moderators to apply and "enforce" the rules. You may be interested in reading this, which was written by Terry about a year ago when things were particularly heated around here: http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/27420-decorum-and-acting-scoutlike/?p=420946 (The "rules" he mentions are not the only ones, the other ones basically are "no commercial spam" and "don't pretend to be two or more different people posting in the forum when you really are just one", which is known elsewhere on the Internet as the "no sockpuppets" rule.) Within these "rules", everybody is free to express their opinions, and that INCLUDES the opinion that a word or phrase or thought expressed by someone else is "offensive." If, for example, DavidCO perceives that a word used by someone else is a slur against his Scouts or his unit or CO, he has the right to say so. Others can agree or disagree. It doesn't mean the "forum" is "PC" or "overly PC", or not. It just means we are having a discussion. We (both moderators and non-moderators) can also, of course, try to use the power of persuasion to encourage others to behave in a more "Scoutlike" manner. If push comes to shove, a moderator or the moderators as a group can take "action", and the question of when push has come to shove may vary over time, especially since the identities of the "active moderators" changes over time. I think that some of the discussion above may reflect that, whereas terms like "cupcake" and "snowflake" did not result in any "moderator action" in the past, that may be changing. Time will tell. And if you want to regard that as "overly PC", you are free to do so. I guess that after that, I should probably say that the opinions expressed above are my own and not necessarily those of the forum owner (except for the words in his own post, linked above) or the other moderators.
  6. I know that. But it's usually used as a joke.
  7. At this hour, after dealing with words for a living all day, I'm not even going to try to figure out what you are saying here. It seems to be some sort of joke.
  8. Ok, here we have the term "special snowflake", as it was first used in this thread, which has caused this recent discussion of the term "snowflake." Notice that Ian did not call any youth, or category of youth, a "snowflake" - at least not how I interpreted it. I thought he was referring to the attitude of certain PARENTS who believe that their son is a "special snowflake" - in other words, overprotective parents who micromanage their sons' childhood, because they think their son is so fragile and that if he comes into contact with a situation that is too "hot", he will melt. Hence, snowflake. People have been using that term in this forum, almost always in THAT way, for many years. I am not sure where the "special" part came from - maybe it's just for emphasis. (Now that I think about it, I have also seen references to certain parents being overprotective of their "fragile flower", which is the same idea, so maybe it is a question of alliteration.) This does, however, remind me of a person who used to post in this forum a lot, who would call a certain kind of Scout "cupcakes." That is different, because there the Scouter was clearly and directly insulting certain Scouts. As in "cupcakes who make Eagle without ever walking into the woods with a pack on their back." I believe that is an almost exact quote. I do not mention the name because he apparently is not around to defend himself, but back when he was, I remember that I responded to a couple of his uses of "cupcakes" by saying, "So, ____, what other names do you call the Scouts behind their backs?" I do not necessarily think we are dealing with exactly the same situation here, when "special snowflake" is being used to describe the PARENTS' attitude. On the other hand, if a phrase can be interpreted as to be insulting to a Scout, or a group of Scouts, why even take the chance? That is not what we are here for.
  9. It always seems to come back to that, doesn't it? This is not the first time in this thread that someone has made an analogy between this issue and the termination of the policy requiring local units to exclude gay people, and the analogy is a bad one every time. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but mine is that the BSA is, all other things being equal, now a more "morally straight" place now that it doesn't force a Cub pack to tell Johnny's mom she can't be a den mother just because her life partner (or now, her legally married spouse) happens to be female. Now let's get back to Hooters - about which the only real conclusion that I can draw is that corporate logos should not be worn when working with youth. Hmmm, we have an ASM who sometimes has to come to meetings straight from work and he has on his shirt with the logo of the large retail chain he works for (rhymes with Beers but they don't sell that there). Is that against the rules now? It might make one of the kids want to run out and buy a washing machine...
  10. I remember the movie, I have watched it on tv a couple of times. That quote did not stick with me though. But through the magic of Google, I see it has become a "thing" on the Internet, and you obviously can get a t-shirt of it. My kids wear trendy t-shirts too, but theirs seem to run to Dr. Who, Star Trek/Wars and some video gaming stuff. So I didn't get the Sandlot reference, but when my son wears a t-shirt saying "Look at me still talking when there's science to do", I do know what that's from.
  11. Shh Back Pack, if someone from National reads this I suspect your good idea may suddenly become yet another requirement in the Eagle project workbook. (I just realized this thread is in Issue and Politics, I am moving it to Open Discussion. I suppose it could also go in Advancement but I think it is of more general interest than that.)
  12. No, and that's not a bad idea if you can get the kids to do it. There has been some discussion about that in our troop but nobody has ever done anything about it. Many of the "building" projects have been under the auspices of the public works department of whatever town it is, and they supposedly do maintain the properties. However, I remember one project that my son worked on when he was 11 or 12 that involved building a stone walkway, and it really wasn't planned very well (in my opinion) and due to heavy rains the stones had started sinking into the ground almost before the project was completed. I suspect that if I went back there now, more than 10 years later, there would be no sign that that walkway ever existed.
  13. My popular culture IQ being as anemic as it is, I don't get the reference. What is that? Or don't I want to know?
  14. So what does that mean, "not available"? Does that mean the SM will be missing the next 3 meetings? (Assuming you have troop meetings in July and August, we do not.) My opinion is that if there is a definite set date for the SM Conference in three weeks, and your son just turned 15, that's ok. (Still time to get 11 palms if he timed it right, assuming he wants to end up with 76 merit badges. We had a kid get about 70 once, but I digress...) If, however, there is no set date and your son is getting the runaround, maybe it is time for him (that's him, not you) to decide what he wants to do. If all that remains is the SMC and BOR, I believe the Guide to Advancement would permit an application for Eagle "under disputed circumstances" if the foot-dragging carries on too long. (In my council, once the SMC is done the BOR wouldn't be an issue, because the Scout schedules that directly with the District Advancement Chair, not with anyone in the troop. Members of the troop committee are then invited to participate on the date selected, and the SM is invited to attend and introduce the Scout, but the troop-level leaders have nothing to do with setting the date. They do have to sign the application, and if they don't, that takes us back to the Under Disputed Circumstances chapter of the BSA Advancement Lawbook Guide to Advancement.)
  15. Or the mettle, even. Sorry, I try not to do things like that, but sometimes I can't help myself. The best one I have even seen in the Scouting context is when the annual calendar came out one year and it had the date for the spring "Quart of Honor." I would think we could manage at least a couple of gallons of honor.
  16. I knew people would have a problem with the idea of asking the Scout to come back for his BOR when he is in uniform. As I said, I know that is not what the G2A says. But I didn't make the "rule". It has been in existence since before (probably long before) my son and I joined the troop, and my son will soon be 25, so you do the math. Nobody has ever complained about it, and nobody has ever switched troops over it, probably because nobody really has a problem with it and they know that if they don't pass this week, they will pass next week when they find their uniform. They all have a uniform. And the BOR's are held at troop meetings, so they generally are wearing the uniform anyway. And if there really was an emergency, the boy is having his Life BOR and today is his 17.5th birthday and if he doesn't pass the BOR today he will never make Eagle, and he has some sort of excuse as to the whereabouts of his uniform, he probably would get a break. (I suppose some other boy might be in his undershirt for part of the meeting while Life Candidate borrows his shirt. But I don't think the subject has never come up.) And quite frankly, if anyone ever did start yelling and screaming to council about it and waving around the Guide to Advancement, we would probably have to change the policy. But it says something to me that, in this day and age where it seems parents like to find anything they can to complain about, this has never happened. So, call it a "power trip" if you wish, it doesn't matter, because I know that in my troop, that's not the case.
  17. This would not fly in the troop I serve. The Scout is asked to stand, give the Scout sign and recite the Oath and Law, and then is asked to be seated. No questions are asked until the boy is seated. If he seems nervous we try to put him at ease and tell him we are really there just to have a conversation. The recitation of the Oath and Law is not pass-fail, by the way. They do the best they can, and it seems like the ones who know these things cold, if you wake them up in the middle of the night they can recite the Oath and Law with no problem, suddenly at their Life BOR the whole thing seems to fly out of their head. It's almost comical in a way. Sort of like I will occasionally blank out in the middle of the Pledge of Allegiance, which I have only been reciting since kindergarten, in the early 1960's.
  18. Cough cough... well, this depends on who you talk to, but most Jewish people do not see it as a matter of "morality" for males to have their heads covered in synagogue. It is really more of a custom designed to remind one that he is in the presence of God. (I'm probably not saying that exactly right, but it's the best I can do.) And the custom varies: Many Orthodox Jewish men have their heads covered all the time, whether in a place of worship or not. On the other hand, these days, some Reform Jewish women (including my sister-in-law) will wear the traditional head covering in the synagogue. Even 20 years ago it would have been unheard of for a woman to do so. (And by the way Stosh, I've been to "church" on a number of occasions, but I do not cover my head there, because when I am in a "church" I am in a Christian place of worship, not a Jewish one. I do realize that many Christians call any place of worship a "church.")
  19. Well, I think I saw a suggestion somewhere in this thread, or one of the articles, that their employer was paying them for the time they were spending at the camp. So they were getting paid, but not by the council. So in effect Hooters was making a donation to the council, and someone thought it would be appropriate for the gals to wear some Hooters logos while they did so. That apparently is what the council called "the wrong attire." As has been discussed, they were dressed fairly modestly for a summer's day outdoors.
  20. I've never been to a Hooters or any of the similar places. On the relatively rare occasions when my wife and I go out to eat, and we are deciding where to go, somehow that suggestion never comes up. I must have an innate sense of self-preservation, or something. But of course, if we did go to Hooters, those same young ladies would be wearing shirts that did not have quite the same neckline as they do in the photos from the Cub Scout camp. Not that there's anything wrong with that... depending on who you are asking.
  21. Yes, I think "they" are more interested in the Scout learning to prioritize things, and to think about needs vs. wants, and to be able to explain the answer, than in what the answer actually is. Come to think of it, most adults are not very good at this either. Maybe everybody should be required to pass this merit badge, not just boys going for Eagle.
  22. Stosh, the two issues have nothing to do with each other. And while I don't know this for absolute fact, I would be very surprised if the Mom in the video who was complaining about the Hooters Girls had been involved in agitating for allowing units to stop discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. What I don't understand about this story is the local council's apology for anyone wearing the "wrong attire." I looked at the photos including the ones on Facebook, and I see no "wrong attire." I see three young-adult women dressed for a summers day in the outdoors. Though I could see an argument that the tallest of the three is wearing shorts that could be considered right on the edge of being a little too, well, short under these particular circumstances. But not blatantly over the line, so I don't see what the apology is for.
  23. Good one. My father used to come up with this kind of thing when he was SM. Sadly it is a mostly lost art today.
  24. I'm going to agree with Calico here - and I am not even deterred by the fact that Stosh seems to agree with him too.
×
×
  • Create New...