packsaddle

drat! double post(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Oooooooo, this is fun....ilkskies, ilkshkas...how about a take off from the Legend of Sleeping Hollow, ilkabods? Ilkthyologists? Edited part; heh, heh, I just mispelled a word that doesn't exist yet.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Eamonn said, "We all keep on learning something everyday." and that is so true for me. Well maybe not EVERYday but then my memory isn't what it used to be either. But that's the idea. Bob White might get nervous when I write this, but I'm persuaded by his approach. Training gives leaders the opportunity to learn the basics, and if they're really interested they may also acquire the 'feel' for it. Then, over time, we continue to refine things through experience and other resources like this forum. However, if they're not trained they are at a disadvantage compared to those who are...and without the training, the probability of presenting a solid program, I think, is diminished.

Hey, I'm with you on that monopoly thing. And Lisabob, I'd be glad to listen to ANY president as long as he or she wasn't nicknamed, 'Dubya'. The speech might even employ correct grammar. But Pappy, I am feeling a bit left out here. How come you worry about Lisa's tenure and not mine. I may be just a scientist but we're capable of ruffling feathers too. And, hey, it's even worse for me because I don't fit any of the neat little labels being thrown around, although like Trevorum, I'm probably part of the 'ilk' too.

Pappy, I can actually agree with most of that. Thing is, I don't see it as necessarily lamentable. Diversity is- and always has been- necessary for social evolution as well as biological evolution.

Dan: Steve and Ken, married? Joined in a loving monogamous relationship? Heaven forbid! Pappy, I'm open to your thoughts as to what you think is 'normal', statistically speaking, in nature. Keep in mind that to meet that definition the metric must extend to both positive and negative infinity. Be advised, though, that while you may disagree with my viewpoint, it admits a greater degree of reality than the 'alternate universe' you wish existed (but evidently doesn't, or else you and Nessmuck wouldn't be doing so much handwringing). Or are you ready to give up YOUR local option approach in order to support universal conformity?

I guess Pappy and I were typing at the same time. I'll answer. I would like to see BSA open to all boys as scouts. Period. And to all adults who would make good leaders for the boys, including gays and atheists. The point about DADT was appropriate. That approach allows pretty much all of the above already as long as BSA turns a blind eye to units exercising a local option approach...as you are doing, Pappy. It's called sauce for the goose. And with regard to the question of morality, I see no conflict with allowing gays and atheists as members. My moral code is doing quite well without prejudice and phobias. Finally, a note on statistics...there is nothing 'normal' in nature, in the statistical sense.

Dan, it seems to me that most of the handwringing is being done by Pappy and Nessmuck right now, heh, heh. Anyway, pretty much everything at the university has a cesspool kind of look to it, from time to time, so I'm OK with the analogy. I have raised the transgender issue several times and no one seems to have a response so I think most of us see transgender as a non-issue. Hypothetically, let's say that I decide that I need to undergo the procedures for any particular reason (and I think I claimed earlier that if I did, I'd be a knockout:)). Let's say that ole Pappy or Nessmuck found me to be as attractive as I know I'd be and decided to, you know, hook up. And I agreed. Would that violate BSA policy? Would BSA insist on a karyotype, just to be sure, for membership? While the chromosomes would definitely be male/male, the physics would be well within the behavioral parameters, right? Heh, heh, I just love this policy stuff.

Nessmuck, so....DID you know that already? Because if you did know that already, you also know the futility of your rants. BSA doesn't even agree with you. It seems that your energy would be better spent trying to reconcile your opinions with BSA first. In this unit lifestyle isn't an issue BECAUSE lifestyle isn't on display. As many others have noted so often, lifestyle isn't an element of the program. All good leaders try to be knowledgeable of the program and the methods and skills. They are interested in the growth and well-being of the boys and always are ready to listen and teach. Whether these leaders are gay or not is irrelevant. Like I said, I know for a fact that these leaders pose no threat whatsoever to the boys in any way related to lifestyle. We need good leaders, they are good leaders, and the boys like them. Personally, if lifestyle WAS on display it wouldn't bother me, my children, nor, I suspect, most of the boys in the unit. But lifestyle isn't on display for whatever reason, perhaps because of the "don't ask, don't tell" thing. Whether someone is gay or not just doesn't enter the picture at all and we don't obsess about it. YOU obsess about it. And since you acknowledge that it is out of your control, I wonder why the obsession? And no, I've never met anyone who evangelized about ANY aspect of being dead and coming back from hell ESPECIALLY to my family. (you do understand that in my opinion, 'hell' and 'Satan', for that matter, are myths?)

Wow, thanks for those two links, guys. They were pretty much along the lines of what I saw with maybe a little meanness mixed in here and there. But I didn't know about the uniform thing. I had assumed that the black scouts just couldn't afford uniforms. Bad. Not the first time I've been clueless...nor the last.

Nessmuck, just a quick note for you to file somewhere. Gays are already in BSA. I know this. More are joining all the time. There is nothing that can stop them. They are good leaders and pose no risk whatsoever to the boys. I know this as well. You just don't know about them. Here's the good part: BSA policy is the reason you don't. BSA's effective policy of 'don't ask, don't tell' makes this outcome inevitable. But as such, it also quietly condones the status quo as long as the status quo is itself quiet. Here's the really, REALLY, good part: YOU are part of the reason BSA has this effective policy. And this is one of my most delicious ironies of all time. Bon Apptit

Fscouter, I'd like to help but I was viewing everything through the eyes of a teenager. All I can say is that some troop leaders and scouting professionals were open about their prejudice, others were discreet. They pretended to be friendly to the black troop while showing a quite different side to us afterwards. I also know that plenty of black boys lived close to our troop - and there was NEVER any kind of invitation to them by our church. Presbyterian, BTW, and staunchly segregationist. When busing first began to integrate the schools in a real way, I remember that first crop of black students in our high school US history class. The teacher, on the first day of school, interrogated each black student in front of the class asking each if he WANTED to be there. They, of course, didn't know what to say, as if it mattered. The teacher found one particularly timid soul who just sat there silently and shook. The teacher shouted at him and the rest of the class his conclusion, "So you were FORCED into it, eh?" I'll never forget the fear in those eyes. I seriously doubt that any of those black kids would have EVER considered joining our troop just down the street. Anyway they would never have been allowed to by the CO. And I'm sure that those openly prejudiced scouters would have concluded that the black kids CHOSE not to join, thus confirming their prejudice. Whether this was a matter of official policy or not I can't say. It certainly was condoned, however, and that could be due to what OGE suggested...that BSA tends to follow rather than lead when it comes to such social issues.

Fscouter, you have to realize that when I was a scout in the 1960s racial segregation was a very hot (sometimes literally) issue. In fact it was the way that the Republican Party eventually took pre-eminence in the South - with switchovers like Strom Thurmond, etc. When I was a scout not only were there only white or black troops exclusively, in the charged climate of prejudice and hatred even the mention of some kind of racial integration was met with intense 'interest'. BSA was not immune to this, nor did they exactly 'lead the way' in the Civil Rights movement. I remember going to a Scout-a-rama to compete against other troops. Among dozens of competing troops, there was a black troop there, one of the very few in existence. To our credit, some of the boys in the white troops treated them just like any other scouts. But I remember well the explicit comments, and racial jokes that some troop leaders and some professionals made...occasionally in front of the black troop. I remember feelings of shame and sympathy toward the boys in that troop. I'm feeling it right now as I remember it. At the time, I was embarassingly clueless about politics and Civil Rights and I was more interested in hunting and fishing and camping. But I kept the memories of what I saw and heard. I suspect that lots of other boys did as well. I'm glad those things changed. It demonstrates that although things are not perfect today, things are definitely better. And therefore that BSA is capable of changing in the future as well. So I agree with Trevorum.

Trevorum, I have to ask, did you tell them about BSA's racial segregation or did they find out independently. I agree with you regarding the future. Prejudice won't die, in its various manifestations, but it can be marginalized.

To summarize, the writer 'held his nose' and found a troop that has a program that their son enjoys. As long as the unit doesn't allow the 'issues' to affect the boys in the unit, their son will do fine and they will be able to support this 'local option' approach. From my conversations among the families of this unit, the majority of them have gone through a similar decision-making process. I suspect we're not unique.

"We" are not, I think, becoming desensitized. Last spring after the Virginia Tech tragedy my students were in shock and we collectively responded in many ways. This spring, now that the tragedy has been repeated, my new crop of students are reacting exactly the same way as my others did last year and I expect our responses will be repeated as well. I note, also, that I am already hearing the idiots on talk shows calling for more guns on campus...just like last time...and just like Columbine. So the sensitivity, as far as I can detect, is still there for all viewpoints.

Only for the stuff that supposedly makes ol' Bud wiser.

OGE, heh, heh, down here we like to observe that one man's junkyard is another man's frontyard. Are you sure which one it was? If you ever get down here again drop a line ahead of time. I'll shoo the chickens off the sofa and you can stop by to set a spell. Edited part: All this porkchop talk is makin' me powerful hungry!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OGE, heh, heh, or at least that's what the guy down the road thinks, who flies the Confederate Flag above the US Flag. But I doubt that we'll be able to get those slaves back...maybe have to try for a different group, wink, wink. If we can just get those 'liberal' types to back off. I see a bit of irony that Pappy, who has - more than anyone else I've read on these forums - carved out a unique, unabashedly 'local option' unit...this very same Pappy...is afraid that there is a 'culture war', whatever. If ANYONE is engaged in such a thing, HE's the one! Most of the rest of us are trying to do what Bob White suggested a couple of messages back. And that is a whole lot more along the lines of conformity than what Pappy described for that unit. Edited part: typo, sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Being from the South, you'll understand why I have to ask, what is 'culture'?

I don't know about that 'stimulus' but I'd sure like to tell them where to stuff the tax return.

"And make no mistake -- if BSA would only bend to the will of the ACLU, the lawsuits would magically disappear." Nah, the lawsuits would disappear if dah government entities stopped breakin' dah law. An' dat wouldn't be magic. It'd be doin' dah right thing.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

ScoutingAgain, I assume that waa tongue-in-cheek. Of course for me there was no choice to it whatsoever. And strongly reinforced, I might add, when I first saw Richard Boone. Man, that guy was UGLY! So it's purely and strongly genetic for me. Dan, I agree, thanks to Scoutmomma for her observation.

SMNJ, welcome to the forums!

Heh, heh, I was just messin' with ya, Pappy.