Callooh! Callay!1428010939

What is the best long distance one-man or two-man carry for a person with an injured leg?

Best? I suppose it would depend on the resources available, the strength and condition of the carrier(s), the weight and condition of the victim, the extent, nature, and seriousness of the injury, whether or not they actually need to be moved and how far (think about AK-Eagle's advice above for this decision), the terrain, maybe even the weather.

That you know some ways already is good. If and when you must improvise, adapt, and overcome to deal with a situation, you'll have a base of skills and knowledge from which you may calmly adapt to handle the situation as well as it can be handled with the resources you have available to handle it.

In the situation you describe it sounds like there were more scouts around that could have helped or swapped out spots with you had you been unable to continue. But I am probably not telling you anything in this post that you didn't already know. Sorry.

Socks are good. Open toed shoes are not welcome around Boy Scout camps I've been to lately. I like to wear sandals, but refrain from wearing them around camp.

You registered 9/3/2011 according to the info in the left margin and your first post is the one that starts this thread.

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

I don't care much about gayness one way or the other.

But there's a practical concern here. Gays per se are not bad people just for being gay. But, BSA is an organization for boys... boys that many gays will find attractive. If you scoff at the notion that many gays will find boys attractive, a bit of very unsavory research, that I need not spell out for you, may disabuse you of that delusion. These gays will not tell us that they are joining BSA because they are attracted to boys - heck, they might even lie to themselves about it. If a troop excludes whatever small percentage of the people who want to be scouters from among the already small percentage (less than 5% of Americans) who are gay? What has that troop lost? Even if only 1 out 100 gays is of the sort about which we might worry - the other 99 are not a big proportion of the potential volunteer base.

Although less than 5% of the US population is gay, gays currently occupy a disproportionate space in the public imagination. And attitudes toward them are changing in society. That will color attitudes toward organizations that exclude them. Unless the trend changes, BSA will have to decide where it wants to be on a changed spectrum of being in tune with society at large vs holding values that differ in some way from society at large.

BSA may well cave into pressures on the gay issue if and when it calculates it can survive a possible exodus of LDS and other similarly principled groups that may care less about being in tune with wider society on issues like that.

If and when it happens, IMO, Chartering Orgs should retain authority over whether or not they accept gays.

"Didn't this thread used to be about George Takei?"

Indeed it was... but was the problem? I can't recall...

was it that folks were worried that he might be an atheist because he's a Buddhist?

Might the existence and relevance of this question prompt reconsideration of the appropriateness of combining these ceremonies?

It's primarily your son's call unless your troop already has a precedent for this

- but if it's a quandry - maybe that's a clue rather than a question.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Are inconsistencies and vagueness a blessing or a curse?

Yes.

"stereotyping about the ethnicity of the author"

-Huh? There was no reference to the authors' ethnicity in my post and no attention to it in my mind. About authors, I noted; two professions, one name, and political orientation.

Maybe since the name was a Spanish word, people who hold such stereotypes might stereotype the owner of that name as being Hispanic... and such a stereotyper might take mention of the name as reference to ethnicity. But it isn't. It's reference to "left..." izquierdo..." "izquierda..." you know, Spanish for the word "left." The fact that the word is Spanish is irrelevant... but maybe not to one who stereotypes all Hispanics as leftist. If that's where the "stereotyping about the ethnicity occured," then it occurred in a mind other than mine.

However regarding the charge of "stereotyping an entire profession..." - Today's anthropologists trend left in their politics. Some aren't and that makes them unusual in that regard among their professional peers. If being aware of that is stereotyping - well, OK.

"'...why bring up right/left politics at all? Why not just address the argument?"

-I didn't know I was addressing a specific argument... I thought I was addressing the OP which read: "Yah, this might be an interestin' read for discussion as it pertains to Scouting."

It was of some interest, and so I did discuss a little. We could reasonably disagree over whether or not my post met the "as it pertains to Scouting" proviso of the OP suggesting such discussion. But to invite us to discuss an article that is of a piece with what the New Yorker's own website describes on the very page on which that article appears as it's "signature mix of politics, culture and the arts" but then to say we should eschew politics....seems a bit fussy.

Deliberately obtuse?

Or what I wrote is very unclear?

In the first post, I did not say spoiling children is a partisan issue.

In the second post, I explicitly said that I don't think it's a partisan issue.

However in both posts, I did mention the proclivities of lefty journalists and anthropologists to find fault with the modern US where they find good in other societies.

This is apparently confusing for you... as if the mention of politics at all is like a dog-whistle to which your ear is especially attuned and which render you unable to process any information in its proximity.

And frankly, I don't think being deliberately unkind to kittens is appropriate. I can't fathom why you disagree.

Beavah:

Prior to school there is day care for many. I don't know how many, but since the original conclusions seem to rely heavily on observations of one six year old girl in the Peruvian Amazon, perhaps observations of one other six year old girl with a lot of day care under her belt would be sufficient to complement the original research.

"Why is it that yeh feel the opposite?" I don't. I didn't offer an opinion the opposite of anything having to do with whether or not liberals or conservatives are more likely to spoil their kids. My guess is that raising spoiled children is an option equally available to folks of all political stripes.

The reference to "leftiness" above pertains not to who is more likely to spoil children or how, but rather to what we might expect a journalist (a lefty one anyway) and anthropologists (lefty ones - which is to say most) to be primed to find and point out to us when they compare the society of nice Peruvian Amazonians to the society of bad old US Americans. They like to find fault with US and romanticize THEM. But, as I said... just because they're lefties following lefty imperatives doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong about everything they tell us.

On the one hand, I buy off on the "show improvement" camp's argument.

On the other, I admire the attitude expressed in the qwazse post above.

Regarding the article the OP refers to....

It's a journalist's comments about an anthropologist's mostly anecdotal observations from small sample populations. The journalist is left-leaning and the anthropologist is... well, an anthropologist. And aptly named "Izquierdo" (if her politics don't match that name, she's unusual in her profession). So OF COURSE they are going to tell us about how characteristics of some primitive culture are equal to or (more likely) better than modern US culture. On the other hand, just because it's lefty journalism and anthropology, it doesn't mean its conclusions are incorrect... even a broken clock (provided it's an analog clock with both hands intact and attached) is correct twice a day.

It does seem reasonable that there might be some differences in the way children of a primitive culture in the Peruvian Amazon would behave as compared to most US kids. They live differently.

Note that the child in that first anecdote was out with a family unit doing things that other people in her society do - not just things that little girls do in the company of other little girls. She was not put into an age segregated group that does things separately from the rest of her society for most of the day as most US kids are (we call it school).

The kids in the "not spoiled" example in the article are different from US kids primarily in that their "socialization" takes place in the environment of their family and their community. Whereas US kids are "socialized" by spending a lot of time in big groups of persons who are mostly just as uncultured and uncouth as themselves - and they become "socialized" to that environment. The Peruvian Amazon kids in the article learn to be people from other people of all ages. Kids in US schools learn to be people from... from other kids - or at least moreso than they would if their days were structured (or unstructured) more like the Peruvian Amazon kid in the example.

Anyway - that's one reasonable hypothesis about a possibly contributing factor to what we're told the anthropologists observed in these little studies they did.

And it says "Senior Forum Member" under "Callooh! Callay!" now instead of "Forum Member." Was it number of posts? Time registered? Grumpiness? "Senior," neato.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Dear Parent,

The troop must make reservations and commit funds for summer camp by date X.

Between now and that date, your son can secure his spot at summer camp by turning in his completed medical form and a fee of $X. We won't accept any payments or make any reservations for boys whose med forms are not up to date.

Is that reasonable?

BadenP,

You sling "White Upper Class Elitist" at us as if were some kind of nasty epithet - as if folks will shun BSA because of "the stereotype most outsiders have of the BSA being a White Upper Class Elitist organization." Really? What's wrong with white people? Why do these outsiders (and you apparently) dislike white people? Should white people be embarrassed or ashamed of their whiteness? Should they try to downplay it? Are there any other ethnic groups that need to keep their ethnicity on the low down or is it just whites? Or is it the "Upper Class Elitist" part that bothers you? What bothers you so much about people who have strived and achieved (or are you assuming that we all inherited everything we have?)

An uncharitable view of your arguments might be that they aren't arguments at all, but merely name calling. But we understand you're just playing at angry incoherence in order to add compelling drama to the impecable logic of your well reasoned arguments.

You seem to be suggesting that our lack of experience being poor (an assumption on your part - and an incorrect one in at least one case) disqualifies us from opining (unless we agree with you) about issues to do with poverty. If such a personal history is necessary to opine on such things, then you should lay off this "White Upper Class Elite" that you apparently dislike so much unless or until you've walked a mile in their topsiders.

You "dare" me "volunteer at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen or food bank" so I can gain this experience you think I lack with the poor? You think, because I don't agree with you, that I've never rubbed shoulders with the poor? That's rich.

"The truth is any given African American or other minority is much more likely to be "poor" than any given White" Yes - this fact I noted previously. However I don't agree that "the rate is much more important number" for the purposes of this discussion.

Reasonable parties concede that some people are poor more because of choices they make and others are poor more because of misfortune - still others for some combination of the two.

But if, as has been posited, the rate (higher rate poverty among blacks, that is) is the much more important number.... Why is it so important? Is it supposed to guide how we think of blacks or how we think of poverty? It is that we can't hold blacks and whites equally responsible for their own choices? Or is it that when white people are poor it's more likely to be their own fault than it is for blacks? ... There isn't much daylight between either of those assertions and I suggest we simply scrap the idea of treating the black poor differently than we treat the white poor. Let us be equal under the law and in how we think of each other's moral agency, regardless of race.

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Failure to distinguish between rates and totals can confuse one's perception - particularly on issues on which we're always hearing about the rate and not the total.

The argument that being critical of the poor is racist because the poor are mostly minorities is essentially the same as all the other "disparate impact" arguments floating around. We could use the same illogic to claim the income tax code is racist and targets whites for unfair discrimination since they pay more taxes than other groups - but let's not seriously make that argument; it's silly.

The Baden P statement that "the poor in this country for the most part are minorities as US Dept. of Labor reports it" is false; the poor in this country are not mostly minorities and the US Dept of Labor does not report that. Minorities experience poverty at higher rates than non-minorities, but that does not mean that most poor people are minorities. There are more poor non-minorities because there are more non-minorities.

My "sociological theory?" This is deliberately obtuse right?

Or is someone trying to get my goat by accusing me of something as scurrilous as sociology?

Wow! BSA-24 gets off easy - he's just accused of racism.

But I put in a few words of half-hearted defense... and get accused of sociology.

How low can the ad hominem arguments go?

BTW - SeattleP's probably right about the exaggeration in posts in this thread... some of that exaggeration looks like it's purposely employed for the rhetorical effect of hyperbole. And some of it looks like it's a way of projecting racism onto unpleasant truths so as to avoid dealing with them - or maybe I'm exaggerating a little.

When I was a scout, I got used uniforms. I don't recall feeling at all bad about it.

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"This is known as a slippery slope, and is well established in Sociology."

I didn't know that it was well established in Sociology.

But any person familiar with logic is familiar with it as the "slippery slope fallacy" to such an extent that you can hardly say the first two words without them thinking of the third.

If it is now well establish in Sociology, that may help explain the field's slide in disrepute. Perhaps that slide is along a slippery slope.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Thanks.

It sounded incredible.

Your explanation sounds credible.

"protest marches"

??

in uniform?

"arrogant, sanctimonious, racist and bigotted person"

"anyone defending you is putting themselves in the same bracket"

Indeed... the winning formula for PC mob "justice" enforcement. One yells "heretic!" and anyone who disagrees is implicitly also a heretic. Anyone who deviates from the Stepford-Wives-esque code of nice-thought is holding themselves up to be similarly branded a heretic. No habeas corpus, no jury, and any right to a defense comes with the proviso that the defender is also guilty.

Let's review the charges again:

"you truly are an arrogant, sanctimonious, racist and bigotted person"

It's telling that falsehood or error is not among those charges. The problem apparently isn't that BSA-24 is wrong, it's that what he says makes us sad.

The only support for the charges is a reference to BSA-24's "self serving condemnation of [the poor]." The condemnation must be well disguised between the lines somewhere in BSA-24s posts. I can't find it. And it's mysterious how this condemnation is self-serving. It seems to have gotten BSA-24 nothing but abuse.

Sanctimonious moral exhibitionism is more obviously self serving than this supposed condemnation of the poor. Preening one's holier than thou care for the poor is self serving.

BSA-24 can correct this if it's wrong, but what he has said in this thread essentially amounts to this: The poor are equal to the rich in terms of moral agency.

If this is true, it might be a bit upsetting to folks who like to congratulate themselves for how much they care about the poor. How can one pose as a protector of the less fortunate when folks realize that in many cases, what is portrayed as misfortune, is actually the result of choices?

And... "racist" ? Really? How?

"is done out of respect for the people that lived on this continent before a bunch of pale people came over in ships."

You say "respect" but what it looks like is entirely too much energy spent romanticizing, bowdlerizing, and emulating primitive rituals and pageantry rooted in beliefs and culture the likes of which most of our ancestors (you know, the forebears of those "pale people" who came over on ships) quit millenia ago as they developed the better way of life we enjoy today.

It's not some unintentional discourtesy or unkindness that's the problem. It's inappropriate reverence. Pre-Columbian North American cultures include useful examples of crafts and skills useful in survival, camping, and outdoorsmanship. It's interesting stuff and being historically informed is fine. But OA makes a fetish of it.

You were right not to hold what many would (rightly) see as a Scout event and skirt the rules by calling it a "family event."

"Could it possibly be that this facet of BSA runs so counter-cultural to youth's world views today that they just cringe in horror when they see it?"

Ding ding ding! Give that man a cigar!

But make sure it's not from a store with a wooden "cigar store Indian" statue out front. That would be an intolerable affront to tolerance of the tolerant. And... hey, speaking of cigars... isn't tobacco use a thing that we picked up from the Indians (http://archive.tobacco.org/History/Tobacco_History.html)

Aha!! We've discovered yet another BSA anti-Indian agenda... they make fun of Indians by dressing and dancing like them and then try to suppress their culture by discouraging tobacco use!

What if OA dropped the Indian fetish and adopted in its stead, Renaissance European customs and pageantry for ceremonial purposes?

How much patience would we have for people of European descent who claimed to have some specially inherited authority over how others used cultural artifacts from Renaissance Europe?

How much credence we would give their genetically based claims over rights to be especially offended over this or that perceived slight to "their" European culture?

If a group of non-white non-European American boys dressed as knights for some ceremony... how much patience would we have for the white European American who got offended and said: "these non-white men have no right to use the coat of arms of the House of Umpdefrats! It's not their culture! They shouldn't dress as knights because haven't earned the title! And... oh the horror of it all... they've got a kid with the House of Schmedap's coat of arms on his shield, but wearing a breast-plate from South-East-North-Phalia! That's not authentic! And his helmet looks Roman or something! It's disrespectful. It's sacrilege! Make those non-white boys stop making us white people feel bad!"

But we wouldn't see that. No one would think they were trying to belittle or ridicule Renaissance European culture unless they were really trying to do just that. And then, if they really were trying to ridicule Renaissance European culture, no one would be that bothered by it because no one has an inferiority complex about it. And no one has an inferiority complex about it because compared to other cultures existing at the time... it wasn't inferior.

Boys should follow the requirements and enjoy earning the MB.

The requirement is: "Give the history of one American Indian tribe, group or nation that lives or has lived near you."

From that, I'd happily allow a boy to choose the history of any Pre-Columbian North American culture he wants - even if his criteria for choosing is superstition that somehow that culture is in his genes.

If a boy wanted to choose the Incas on the grounds that South America is just as American as North America, I'd accept that if the boy insisted that the Andes are "near;" "Near" is the only term in the requirement that leaves room for reasonable disagreement.

But regarding this "heritage" issue: Jumbo, please meet Mumbo. Mumbo, Jumbo.

If he's already scout age and he knows little about it, it's not his culture. And "heritage...." what does that mean in this context? What did he inherit? And how much was the estate tax on that inheritance? Ideas, knowledge, and culture belong to those who hold them and practice them; not to any particular blood line. Nor does blood-line exclude someone from ideas, knowledge, or cultural practices.

Go back far enough, and all of our ancestors were stone age people with fanciful animist beliefs and colorful dances and songs with "authentic regalia." We could, at random, pick some colorful period of our ancestral past and emulate it and imbue reverence for it with a lot of hokey gravitas. But that might be silly. Being descendent from some particular blood line does not obligate one to admire, preserve, or promulgate the erroneous ideas or primitive culture of ancestors.

People often speak of blood when they conflate "heritage" with mumbo jumbo. If "Cherokee blood" is what gives someone "Cherokee heritage" Would a person gain Cherokee heritage if they received a transfusion of this Cherokee blood? Would the heritage wear off as those blood cells died and were replaced by the person's own system? If a Cherokee loses blood in an accident and gets a transfusion of non-Cherokee blood to save his life, must he worry that for a while his claim to Cherokee heritage will be diminished by the non-Cherokee blood in him?

And how much of this magical blood must one have in order to claim Cherokee heritage?

Does a "3/4 Cherokee" blood man who knows little of Cherokee culture have a greater claim to Cherokee heritage than a 1/8 Cherokee man who knows a good bit about Cherokee culture? Or how about a non-Cherokee who was raised in a Cherokee family? Or a non-Cherokee who has studied Cherokee culture extensively? Or a Cherokee who was raised in China by Chinese and then emigrated to Russia and subsequently to the United States where he took up with an Arab woman who had been raised in the UK by Portuguese? What level of claim to Cherokee heritage would their children's grandchildrens' cousins' uncles have?

"What is the lesson learned by dad being merit badge councilor????? "

We'd have to refer to the MB requirements to answer that question. It'd be different for each MB.

Yes - folks may talk about you. Talking takes less effort than doing.

You know what kind of people talk the kind of talk we're talking about here - and you know just how concerned you should be with what they think.

Let them talk. You keep on doing what you know is right.