Stosh

I would think that in the future, this troop would indicate to the OA "guests" that they come prepared and that means properly uniformed. Being OA, I would think it would also be appropriate if they were in Indian regalia as well. Either way, the impression given to the potential new members sets a standard by which one is challenged to be part of the honor society of BSA. If the OA members coming for the elections are not prepared, they would need to be asked politely to come back at a later date when they are. Maybe OA should take the Be Prepared idea seriously. I'm a firm believer that cutting someone some slack at times is appropriate, especially when there is just reason for them not knowing the rules. However, by the time one gets into OA, they should be fully aware of what's going on. Reaching ideals is often times an impossibility, however, giving up and settling for second best along the way is not acceptable. In the case mentioned originally, the OA boys should have said, "You are correct, we are not prepared. Is there a time when we can come back and do it properly?" At that point, I'm willing to bet the SM would have said, "Well, you're already here, but please, next time Be Prepared." End of discussion. Both sides of the issue realize the importance of the situation and if they take it to heart, there has been a good step forward for future situations. Even if the OA boys go back and put a note in their records that indicate that SM of Troop XX is a real uniform Nazi, at least when they come to elections, they will be forewarned and prepared. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

In light of the thread on the uniform page whereas it is thought by some that partial uniform are sufficient, expedient, cost-effective, etc. I would like to use the methods of scouting, i.e. tools to show that a screwdriver can be used as a pry bar, a hammer can be used as a weapon, hatchet to pound in tent stakes, that is, any tool can be used in ways it never was intended and still get the job done. 1) Advancement - yet it is acceptable that only 3% of the boys actually attain the rank of Eagle. 2) Ideals - yet, tread after thread shows that bullying, criminal behavior, disciple problems are tolerated over and again in many situations. 3) Patrols - 300', No Way! Mix and match, boys don't show up, ad hoc patrols for competition, whole troop emphasis on everything else. 4) Outdoors - Only an Eagle Scout of today can attain the rank without ever having to start a fire, let alone cook on it. 5) Adult association - Training? We don't need no stinkin' training! 6) Personal growth - Does helicopter parent come to mind? Heck, I got removed from SM position by parents because I expected too much leadership out of my boys. 7) Leadership development - see above... Adult-led, etc. all fit in this category 8) Uniforms - yeah, right! With the polyform policies, there are Class-A's (maybe the pants are included), Class-B's and Class-C's, activity uniforms, waist up uniforms, real uniforms, full uniforms with Wal-Mart pants, camo anyone? etc. etc. etc. If everyone understood the methods of scouting, I'm afraid this forum would cease to exist. A tool is most effective on a job when used properly. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

I would prefer the boys in a plaid shirt and blue jeans than trying to give the impression that a partial uniform is acceptable. Activity shirts, Class-B, costs, etc. are just ways that troop leadership "justify" sloppy uniform method application. There is a Boy Scout uniform and there is not-a-Boy Scout uniform. The inspection sheet explains this quite nicely. If cost is an issue, I would rather have the boys head out to Wal-Mart, pick up a couple of tan shirts and OD pants and use that. They don't need to pretend to be scouts by putting patches on them any more than a scout that pretends to be a scout from the waist up. At least he is uniform with the rest of the troop and when all the boys from the troop fall in with plain tan shirts and OD pants at least they will look "uniform". At flags, then place hands over the heart for a salute. Don't assume that a half uniform or activity uniform or class B allows one the privilege of giving respect the scout salute allows in uniform. I had this issue pressed home to me early in my scout career, i.e. many moons ago. An older scouter when introduced to me saluted me instead of extending his left hand. I paused and then returned the salute. I thought it kinda strange and said something to him (WB patrol together, go Beavers!). He (Eagle from the 1930's) told me the process is simple. If you are in uniform (full-uniform for those who need the emphasis) and the person you are greeting is in uniform, you salute. If you are in uniform and the other scout is not, you offer your left hand. If you are not in uniform and the other scout is, you offer your left hand. If both of you are not in uniform, you shake greetings with the right hand. After many years in scouting, I have saluted very few scouts/scouters. The busiest I have ever been with the salute was at WB and Jambo, both requiring proper uniforms. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

My hat goes off to the SM and his response. I have had OA members show up for elections with NO UNIFORM at all. Blue jeans and a high school hoodie. Not impressed at all... neither were my boys who are used to a full uniform standard for the troop. THEY mentioned it, I did not. The OA member did not give an answer to his lack of uniform when asked by the boys. Needless to say it left a bad taste in the mouths of the boys. 3 were elected, none did the ordeal. Your mileage may vary Stosh

I have mine pinned to the collar of my jac-shirt. Stosh

10 years ago when I went to Philmont, I was the oldest member of the group. The lead boy was the biggest and strongest and would set a pace that totally exhausted the boys. I kept to my pace and would always lag behind. The SM made one of the other adults lag back with me. I would break camp, walk until breakfast, then walk until lunch and then walk to the destination. The boys would take a break every hour or less and take on water and rest. By then I had caught up, just in time for them to bolt on ahead again. The SM thought he was punishing me by not letting me get a break. Didn't need one. A couple of days into the trek, the other adult in the group was told by the SM to take turns keeping an eye on me and an argument broke out. It would seem that the adult who lagged behind with me didn't want to give up the responsibility because he was seeing more along the way and enjoying the trek a lot more. My slow steady pace showed through when we made the assault onto Mt. Baldy. They chose a course straight up the slag pile on the back side. They struggled every inch of he way. I found switch back trails, and all sorts of opportunities to get up to the top the easiest. They took frequent breaks and found shade at frequent opportunities and when all was said and done, I reached the top first. My adult buddy was second. This whole process did not set well with the SM who kept telling everyone that we were a team and had to stick together and I said nothing, but as the trek wore on, more and more of the boys kept falling back to lag with me. They eventually figured out that the tongue lashing from the SM was easier to accept than the death march pace set by the boy leader. The two adults argued and flipped a coin each morning to see who would win and be able to lag behind with me. All in all, I reached every destination they did within 10 minutes of the lead group and yet totally enjoyed my time on the trek. None of the boys on that trek ever went back to Philmont. One boy cried for an hour after reaching base camp, just because he was so happy it was over. One has to know their limits and be able to think along the way what is going to work the best for them. Simply pushing oneself to their limits and beyond is not a good way to insure a good adventure for the boys. We covered 110+ miles and all 5 major peaks at Philmont in 12 days, not bad for a 50 year old man. Ideally a line of march should be 1) lead boy (most experienced), watches the trail for any problems, communicates it back to the rest of the group. 2) Navagator, reads the map and keep an eye on where we are to go, advises the leader when and were to turn. 3) Slowest person in the group, needs to keep the pace and everyone adjusts to his pace. 4) all of the rest of the group except one. 5) Sweep (second most experienced person in the group), makes sure no one gets past him and is in ear-shot of the lead boy (a whistle can substitute for shouting. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

The boy has his handbook of official advancement. There is no need to provide the new troop any information, bias, opinions or whatever. It is no longer your problem, don't make it a new one. Troopmaster data is the property of the troop. If the mother wants them sent to the new troop, they are not hers to send. If the boy has lost his handbook/record, he can always get a report of his advancement from the Council. I would simply politely decline the request in that those records are the property of the troop. Remember, No is a valid answer to any question. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

People can make up all kinds of rules and regulations along the way and cite all kinds of sources. Doesn't mean it's true, valid or accurate. I normally carry a light-weight sheath knife and belt ax combo when I am not on scout outdoor activities and use it all the time around camp. When I am at scout activities I wear the official BSA sheath knife and belt ax combo. It's a bit heavier, but works the same. Occasionally I lend it out to some of my older boys who have been trained in it's use and I haven't ever had a problem with anyone getting hurt. Of course, they are threatened to within an inch of their lives if they use it improperly. It always amazes my boys when we all go out in the woods looking for firewood for the weekend, I always bring back more than they do. A small hand ax and hooked stave and I can always beat out the boys and their pocket knives. When we're done collecting I can also get a fire going in half the time, too. My coffee's going long before they have dragged in enough wood to even start a fire. Once people get over the fact that Lizzie Borden doesn't live in the woods, and a sheath knife isn't a short-sword substitute and learn how to effectively use these woodcraft tools, it can take the boys to the next step. It really isn't much of a fire guard if the only "shovel" you have is the cat-hole trowel. It might also come in handy to avoid the LNT regulations when it's a true survival situation and the only shelter one can muster up is pine bows and small trees. We don't always get to pick our life or death situations. Like any guide, it is important that it isn't the quintessential answer to all scouting situations, and I'll be the first to break every rule in the book if I'm in a dangerous situation, especially when I have and know how to use every tool in my arsenal. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

The original discussion was on fear of the water. There are boys that spend all their time in the pool and are phobic of open water. To toss a kid into any deep water knowing he'll sink like a rock is as effective as tossing him off a cliff without a parachute. I kinda thought the comparison was rather obvious. To approach any and all situations with the same basic premise of train and then quit is not effective in developing leadership and a well trained boy will not take on leadership just because he's qualified. The extra step, push, or whatever, challenges the boy to go beyond the basics and apply what he has learned. Simply following directions, performing at a trained level, isn't always enough to get the youth "leader" to step up. He has to take what he has learned, over come the fear/lack of confidence, or whatever it is that is holding him back and take the next step. SPL1Warwick was asking what it was that got the boy to that next step. One can't do that with just more EDGE training. He has to be challenged and hung out to dry a bit to prove to him he's capable to taking it to the next level. A boy can be over qualified to be an SPL, but if he lacks self-confidence or fear of failure he'll never move up. One can EDGE him to death, but until a healthy shove, opportunity, or expectation is placed in front of him (Hondo) it will never happen for him. A boy can learn all there is to backpacking, but until he's looking at 12 days at Philmont, he will never to prove to himself he can really do it. Challenges, expectations, and opportunities are what makes a boy a leader, not more EDGE training. A boy can be a master at knots, but until he can get a dining fly up that will take on a bit of wind and rain, he'll never be able to lead a group of boys on an outing. He can master all there is to first aid, but if he is afraid he's going to hurt someone trying to put a split on a broken leg, he'll never be trustworthy in the field or in an emergency situation. He may have earned the life-saving MB, but can he save a life if the situation arises? It would be a real shame to have earned the first aid MB and the ASM goes down with a heart attack and he runs around looking for another adult to do the CPR. The Hondo approach of inducing a bit of controlled fear for the boy is what will allow him the opportunity to someday be a real leader. I was never trained to drag a person out of a burning car. It's not in any training manual or first aid course that I'm aware of. But having a sharp scout knife in my pocket, knowing how to use it, how to move an injured person and being aware of the danger, allowed a young boy to live out the rest of his life. Was it a smart thing to do... probably not. But standing there waiting for the fire department and watching him burn to death, wasn't an option for me that I even considered. A SM induced Hondo experience is somewhat, but not totally a risky situation. The boy might fail, he might be embarrassed, he might give up too soon, he might, might, might. But if one practices getting over their fear of whatever it is that is holding him back, he will be a great leader in the long run. 90% of getting youth leaders to step up at anything is overcoming fear. I know of no great leader that doesn't have a more than healthy capacity of self-confidence, and that's not something that can be taught with the EDGE method. A boy doesn't need to fail in this process. He can build self-confidence with a whole series of tests that he may think he's failing but he's not. I was on a white-water canoe outing with a new scout in the front of my canoe, mostly for ballast, holding down the front. The very first rapids he panicked and didn't paddle, I couldn't make the turn and we rolled. He came up sputtering, mad as a hornet and crying... He was not impressed with me one bit. He wanted to "go home". He accused me of trying to drown him. I told him he's standing in waist deep water with a life jacket on, get over it. I then told him to grab the other end of canoe and help me get the water out, we have about a dozen more rapids to go and the canoe floats better when doesn't have any water in it. Fear? Lots of it. I probably scarred him for life, but to this day he still loves to white-water canoe and goes every year. Great kid, I expect him to be starting his Eagle project any day now. For all I know he probably still hates my guts. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

Seattle: Yes, you have it correct. All FC+ scouts should have sufficient training to be able to do anything they want. If not, then there is something wrong with the training process of T-FC. Too often, just checking off boxes, isn't enough. Too many of us are intent on getting the boy through the requirements we pass them off once they have tied the knot once. Like anything in the real world that skill has to be done over and over again in the meeting, at night, in the rain, and then maybe they will be able to do it for the rest of their life. Instead of teaching the boy (EDGE) and then when one gets out into the woods, at night, in the rain, just to have the adults step in and "help", they let the boys struggle through (Hondo) with the situation. A boy that has passed his swim test at the local pool and now gets to camp where there's a big lake that terrifies him, yes, toss him in and expect him to do his swim test. Water in the lake is not going to hold him back just because there is more of it. I would hate to have that pool-boy take a pass on a Sea Base trip just because there's more water in the ocean than in the pool. If one can tie a double half-hitch around the chair leg at the meeting, he should be able to tie that same knot in the dark, in the rain, in the woods. If a boy can do that, he doesn't have self-esteem, he has self-confidence and no adult need interfere with that process. Now, if an older boy wants to step up and help out a 2C boy in the dark, in the rain, in the woods, then you have leadership! No older boy is going to step up and take the reins if he himself cannot do the task himself. Training makes a good scout (EDGE), experience makes a good leader (Hondo). Your mileage may vary, Stosh (This message has been edited by jblake47)

Cherry picking statements out of context will always lead to confusion. "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." - Matthew 27.5 Jesus told him, Go and do likewise. - Luke 10:37 So Jesus told him, What you are about to do, do quickly. - John 13:27 Stosh

The problem is not marrying the right woman in the first place. My fiance is in the woods more than I am and I thought I lived to be in the out-of-doors. Our dates revolve around hiking, skiing, kayaking, etc. With Boy Scouts I do double duty trying to keep up with the boys and her. When my troop replaced me recently, her words of "encouragement" to me when I was down: "Great, now I get you for all three weeks of vacation! Where do you want to go, BWCA?, kayak trip down the Mississippi?, sea kayaking on Superior? Isle Royal? etc." She's bummed out by the fact that I have time to go to Alaska this year and with school she can't go.... Well, she's working on it, but it doesn't look promising. Stosh

One also has to remember to keep the expectations in line with the abilities of the boys. Assuming one has a patrol of all FC+ scouts, why would anyone ever figure they would need to step in and "help", "guide", "mentor", these boys? Of course, if they got their knots checked off because they tied them once, and they filled out a menu and got that checked off, and they watched someone start a gas stove, and..., and..., ?? If a FC scout is properly trained and has the skills to do the job, then one doesn't need to interfere further into the process. If they have a hurdle to climb, they might ask advice, but that's okay along the way, too. Make sure your boys are ready, then let them fly. A lot of boys will not "step up" because they lack confidence in their skills. The way most of the FC skills are taught, I would be nervous too. Everyone is in a big hurry to get to Eagle they fail to actually learn along the way. Every SMC and BOR should be directed towards, what is the next step? What do you want to try next? What's it going to take to "be prepared" for the next step? I'm a firm believer that most boys fail because they weren't ready/prepared in the first place. Boys will step up naturally if they feel themselves prepared and knowledgeable. No one sets out knowing they are going to fail. They aren't going to step up if they know that someone else is going to step in along the way and take over as well. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

It is always more difficult to say "No" when you're looking the person in the eyes. In this day and age, a click of the delete key is rather easy to do, especially if the email is addressed to a dozen others. Stosh

Welcome to the forum! I'm over-the-top when it comes to boy-led, patrol-method as many on the forum will attest. Just a couple of insights to begin with.... 1) The boys coming from an adult-led program basically don't know what to do and will wander aimlessly until some training is given. The comment by Kudu on the stoves will attest to this. The spirit is willing but the body doesn't really know what to do. 2) Boys want to be with their friends. The patrols need to be aligned on their buddies. No one wants to go off on an outing and be 300' from their friends. Don't fight that dynamic, use it! Buddies will drag each other to events if necessary to get the numbers. 3) Make sure the boys have outlined goals for themselves, i.e. outings, meeting agendas, etc. They won't go after goals set by others. They want to do their own thing. As long as it's within the guidelines of the BSA program, go for it! 4) Planning is just as important as going. Make sure they boys have 100% input into the preparation of the activities. Just because the SM says we need to do knots, doesn't mean the boys are going to go after it whole-heartedly. Maybe simply suggesting it would be kinda neat to have a 20' tower made out of home-made rope and lashed together. Or maybe a 10' monkey bridge over a small creek. Don't have a 20' 1" rope? Make one. Put the idea out there and let the boys figure it out. 5) Have a meeting structure/agenda in each patrol that everyone knows about. a) 5 minutes for opening flags b) 10 minutes for business meeting c) 20 minutes for training d) 20 minutes for game e) 5 minutes for closing flags A general 1 year calendar (created by the boys) should have all the meeting themes, outing, etc. all outlined so the boys always have something to look forward to while they are doing the training, prep at the meetings. Not much sense practicing a musical instrument if you never play in a concert. The number one principle behind boy-led is unless they have a goal and are trained to go after it, they are just going to wander around aimlessly. Unless the adults identify their interests they are never going to be able to guide the boys towards obtaining THEIR goals! Your mileage may vary, Stosh

It is interesting how everyone kinda dances around the issue of public-sector unions i.e. teachers, police, firefighters, etc. and puts them into the same category as private-sector unions, Teamsters, UAW, etc. They are two different animals and it has nothing to do with merit, class sizes, parents helping out, kids' literacy, etc. etc. Let's look at it this way. Education and Teachers Unions -- okay which one. Public schools or private schools? In private schools, I'm all for it. Go for as much as you can get, or at least as much as the market can bear without causing the school to fold due to over payroll/benefit expense. There's a natural limit there that for the welfare of the school, one doesn't push it too far. However in the public-sector, the sky's the limit. Just pass all the increases on to the taxpayers, go for broke! Taxpayers' pockets are deeper than even insurance companies when it comes to going for it. And so in the end, non-elected union officials are setting the pay level of the taxpayers and not the elected representatives, those who are elected by the electorate who assign responsibility for that process. I didn't vote these union officials in and I don't want their hands in my pockets. It's bad enough the politicians have their hands in my pockets and I haven't got enough pockets anymore for just everyone. I vote for elected officials to do the work, not pass that responsibility off to union officials to dictate. This is why FDR and George Meany both were adamantly opposed to private-sector unions of any sort. I'm in their camp. I'm 100% for private-sector unions and 100% against public-sector unions. Those that can't see the difference aren't really looking at the situation honestly and in depth. It's hard to see the truth when people are tossing images of teary-eyed first graders into the fray. Add a sigh and you have the complete picture. Nothing worse than seeing our heroic police and fire-fighters walking away from their sworn responsibility because of some perceived financial threat. George Meany said it best when he identified private-sector unions as being impossible to maintain. I walked strike picket lines for months on end many times in my lifetime, paid a lot of union dues along the way, too, but I wouldn't cross the street to help out a public-sector union, knowing what I know. The greatest champion of unions in the 20th century had it right! FDR wouldn't last 15 seconds in a public opinion poll of today! Your mileage may vary, Stosh

I don't think imprinting is restricted only to men/boys and women/girls. As I said, girls tend to seek out men who are like their fathers and boys definitely need to learn compassion and nurturing from their mothers. The problem lies in the breakdown in marriages. If a girl's father has been ousted from the household as the rat that he is, what model will the girls have to follow? And what model will a boy have if his mother is out of the picture when it comes to taking care of anyone but himself. There are several dynamics that add to the mix of the hard-wiring for boys. Unless the warrior/hunter has someone to protect and provide for, i.e. his golden-haired maiden, then his aggression is only for his own self-serving interests. A good patrol leader has characteristics of both father (leader) #1 warrior/protector and mother (care for his patrol members) #3 someone to care for. Add to that #2 - adventure, and all are taught in the BSA. Who's showing him all these things in equal balance? Another male who can say, been there done that. A female SM might be able to do well in #3, the taking care of someone, but do they have the strength of character to do well with #1 and #2? All they can say is haven't been there, haven't done that. So then do our boys have to settle for what they can offer? (I know I'm going to take flack for this, but I'll even go so far as to say a good female SM will do more good than a poor male SM.) I have always distinguished in the back of my mind which boys are going to be strong, adventurous leaders and those that I call Parlor Scouts, i.e. the Eagle that has never camped or started a campfire during this BSA career. Yes, I have had Eagle scouts in my troops that can't start a simple cook fire in the woods. It's sad. Stosh

LOL! I stand corrected! Good eye! Maybe it ought to be Bovine Travel Directors and Native Americans, too. Stosh

I toured the International Crane Foundation a few years back and watched the imprinting process they used to make sure the young chicks did not bond to human handlers and thus keep them from being able to function in their own real world. Elaborate hand puppets fed them, and fully costumed handlers were the only people allowed to raise these chicks. Yet, what imprinting is put upon our young? Ineffective father, divorces and mom raises the kids either alone or with an ineffective step-dad ("You're not my REAL dad!"). The vast majority of our youth in America fall into this category. Boys thus have no imprinting model to follow, except Mom. Women used to grow up and marry men that were like their dads, well that isn't happening either. So both the male and female of the traditional family social structure are short-changed. So how does one resolve the conflict between natural instincts and the alteration of imprinting on our children. We have the "whimpy momma-boys" and the "agressive tom-boys" or worse yet the term reserved for the female of the canine/lupine family, and all are expressed with a negative tone to it. If it's broke, why is everyone accepting the status quo and not trying to reverse the negative spiral? I hear in many of the forum threads, allusions to this "problem" and yet it is accepted and often times promoted. If we aren't involved in the process/program of raising up men, what is it we are creating? Like the old margarine commercial, it's not nice to fool Mother Nature, but isn't that what we are all about in many things we do? I never wanted to grow up to be a divorced, administrative assistant when I grew up. I wanted all my kids to be well adjusted and happy, that didn't work either. I had great plans and somewhere along the way, the world around me kept telling me no. I listened only to those who said yes and all it did was get me into trouble. In the back of my mind I always believe in and honor the efforts of the salmon. This "stupid" fish will risk it all to swim upstream so that the species will survive yet another generation. Anyone have a human analogy that can beat that one? Your mileage may vary, Stosh

There are always words that get hijacked somewhere along the way. Faggot - metal band that wrapped around a bundle of spears for a Middle Ages army. Brits (sorry, people of British descent) hijacked the word to identify a "pack" of cigarettes. Instead of being totally wrapped in a pack, they were first sold as a bundle of cigarettes wrapped in a paper band, i.e. faggot. Eventually the cigarette itself was referred to as faggots, or fags for short. Now it's a derogatory term for homosexuals. Sorry for the history lesson, but have a gay old time thinking about it. I can take just about any word in the English language and turn it into something sinister, if I express it correctly. When I was a kid, my younger brother was a real pest. Duh! aren't all younger brothers a pest? I was fishing and he was hanging around being a pill. In my tackle box was a container of fish hooks manufactured by the Pfluger company. I turned to him and told him to get lost because he was a Pfluger. Of course he took it in the spirit in which it was given and ran off to tattle to Mom. Mom showed up and was irate as to this new "bad" word I had learned... She laughed, but told me not to use it anymore. No problem, like I couldn't come up with something just as "bad" the next time? Of course, regardless of the word used, someone's always going to take the most negative reaction possible. Of course these words get reserved for certain positive things as well. Especially when a young man immigrated to America from South Africa, naturalized and every time he fills out a form, marks down African-American and gets into trouble. He's definitely of British/German descent, but he did come from Africa. Duh! I'm a native American, born and bred here. But I can't use the term because I only have 1/20'th Indian descent, not enough to "qualify" to use the term. Being native to America is not qualifications enough. Heck, I grew up using words today that are deemed politically incorrect. We thought nothing of it and no one ever wondered about it until some PC person jumped down our throats. Heck, playing cowboys and Indians just isn't the same as playing cowboys and Native Americans, or maybe it ought to be Law Enforcement Officers and robbers. I'm still scratching my head as to how the corporate title Aunt Jemimah has survived the onslaught of PCism. When all the dust settles, the only word that remains the same and that is: hypocrite, i.e. overly critical, yet guilty for doing the same as to what they object. If PC is supposed to make people feel better about themselves, how come everyone is being hassled for being guilty of being politically incorrect? I have trouble with the math on this one. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

Psychology is not an exact science so I don't think they will ever be able to definitively answer that question. However, there are certain things that seem to hold true regardless of what the experts have to say, such as: we as a society spend a lot of time teaching our kids how to behave, no one spends any amount of time teaching them how to misbehave. Somehow they have that one figured out a long time before psychology ever has a chance to act on it. Unfortunately we haven't figured out what is really hard-wired and how much is environmentally altered after the fact. Stosh

It goes back to #3. What Romeo ever disrespected his Juliet? One has to hold someone in very high esteem if they are going to dedicate their life to protecting and providing for them and the family that will result. Stosh

IM_Kathy, Thanks for weighing on on the subject. I want to first say that I hope this response does not come off judgmental in any way, shape or form. Just some questions. (just for pensive reasons, there will be no test at the end of the post.) Your husband... when he was 3-4 years old and he was forming his future plans, i.e. what do I want to be when I grow up, did any of them materialize the way he wanted them to be, or at least a close representation? If he wanted to be some sort of idealistic policeman, fireman, race car driver, adventurer, etc. and he ended up an accountant in a cubicle of a large corporation, what happened along the journey? If his life's dream was to make lots of money and that meant sitting in a cube for a few years, maybe that would be different because the journey hasn't ended yet. But how many start out one way and then maybe settle for something else, never really being satisfied and often times feeling bummed out about it. If all he wanted to do is grow up be a good father, good husband and provide for them, then he's meeting his goals. Heck, after 60 years I'm still looking for a woman to do my laundry, cook my meals, clean my house, and all I have to do is run around and have fun. That's what I started out, but as maturity set in I realized those childhood dreams needed to mature, too. But did I ever settle for something else? Did I ever become the heroic warrior? No, but I have saved many people's lives over the years. Does it fulfill some childhood dream, ... kinda. It was neat to have had the opportunity a few times in my life to save someone else's life. Did I plan for it? .... kinda, I learned some skills along the way. But now after 60 years do I ever sit back and regret? No. It's been quite a ride. However, can most men say that? What percentage? If they say things changed and they settled for something less, what are the dynamics that might have short-circuited the hard-wiring? Domineering mother?, lackadaisical father?, female rejection? ???? With divorce rates running as high as they are, how many young boys dreamed of growing up and being divorced? How many dreamed of growing up and being a whimp? How many dreamed of growing up and producing a dysfunctional family? the list can go on forever. What are the dynamics in our society that are producing such things and why are men settling for it when it happens? qwazse, The examples you give are the female's role in those tribal societies, those roles that revolve around home and family. If the camp is attacked, the males are still expected to take up the weapons. If hungry, the males are still expected to go out and hunt, that's what he does to protect the family. Only if the home/family is directly attacked does the female attempt to defend, but will only defend her own family. She is not interested in providing a wide berth protective for the whole tribe, only her own family. Most pictures of these societies show the male with the weapons and the woman with the child propped on her hip. Differing roles both with the same goal. He doesn't stir the cook pot and she doesn't mess with his weapons. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

There's always a thin line between being demeaning and pushing to excellence. If everything is sunshine and roses, where's the initiative to improve. Pollyanna personalities strip away all opportunities for excellence. Yes, I have met people who tell me things can't be done and all it ever does is motivate me to prove them wrong. Just this past week the Xerox representative told me that Microsoft's Excel program won't work on a certain printer/plotter that is in our mail room. If find his wet blanket quite amazing in that I have 12 beautiful 3' x 2' printouts on my desk right now. Even in his ignorance of his product and even less effort in correcting the problem, I still got the situation corrected in spite of him. My high school guidance counselors told me to go to work in the local foundry and at best I might be able to get into tech school for a trade. Well I have an Associates Degree, Bachelor's Degree and Master's Degree. None of these people were "nice" people that did nothing but to set my personal bar low enough for my self-esteem to survive. Sorry, sometimes a kick in the butt is far more productive than a pat on the head. OGE, you may not have like this gentleman, but when all the dust settles you did have someone who did take the time to talk to you about sports. May not be what you wanted to hear, but the other alternative would be for him to be nicer to you and ignore you. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

1) someone earned the money and paid income tax on it. 2) same dollar gets passed on to their children and it gets taxed a second time. 3) kids spend the money and it gets a sales tax slapped on it so it's taxed a third time. Gotta love how much the government gets out of a single dollar the tax payer think he's getting through hard work and due diligence. Tax rate for the low end of the spectrum is 25%. Okay go with a flat 15%-20% federal sales tax. Cut out the IRS (annual savings of billions of dollars), make businesses collect the taxes (like the states already are doing), and quit taxing everything two and three times. Maybe not tax the first $50 of any purchase so low income people don't get taxed at all unless they are buying a new car or big screen TV. Sound too simplistic? Yeah, well it would be way cheaper than the convoluted system we have now. Stosh (This message has been edited by jblake47)