packsaddle

I answered this more completely in the 'thread of origin' but here is the source of Trail Pounder's quote and a little of my reply. http://hnn.us/comments/16479.html "...to address Trail Pounder's source, everyone please go to that page hit the button on that page marked, 'Return to What Bill O'Reilly Should Have Told Ann Coulter' and you will get the whole story. Here's a quicker way to it: http://hnn.us/articles/1622.html By Anthony Fuentez, a Ph.D. candidate in American History at the University of Pennsylvania. He provides on that page a complete discussion of Trail Pounder's quote (whose source is a claim made by, who else? Ann Coulter)." To save you time, here is Fuentez's punchline from the longer article - a devastating repudiation of Coulter's and Trail Pounder's view, "Hopefully, this brief history lesson is informative enough to repudiate Coulter's reappraisal of McCarthy. For McCarthy was truly a loathsome politician whose name has been associated deservedly with the phenomenon called McCarthyism. No amount of whitewashing and willful ignorance can change the central facts of this historical interpretation." Bon apetite

I sense a failure to communicate for some reason. McCarthy was censured by the United States Senate. Their terminology, not mine. Also the terminology applied by almost everyone else as well. All the accounts I have read indicate that it was the other way around. Consider this account: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0830834.html "In Apr., 1954, McCarthy accused Secretary of the Army Robert T. Stevens and his aides of attempting to conceal evidence of espionage activities that McCarthy and his staff had allegedly uncovered at Fort Monmouth, N.J." Here, we turn to FBI records (remember J. Edgar is a good buddy) From some of the actual FBI files: http://www.paperlessarchives.com/cohn.html "Cohn stated the committee expects him to turn up six Communists in the Army, get the witnesses, stage the show and get everything ready so they can gallantly stride in and take their bows." This, from Roy Cohn himself. But to address Trail Pounder's source, everyone please go to that page hit the button on that page marked, "Return to What Bill O'Reilly Should Have Told Ann Coulter" and you will get the whole story. Here's a quicker way to it: http://hnn.us/articles/1622.html By Anthony Fuentez, a Ph.D. candidate in American History at the University of Pennsylvania. He provides on that page a complete discussion of Trail Pounder's quote (whose source is a claim made by, who else? Ann Coulter). I have to thank Trail Pounder for the source because Fuentez provides a complete and devastating repudiation of Coulter's claims and, sorry Trail Pounder, yours as well. But thanks, I might not have found it without you. Edited part: What the heck, I'll save you some time - here's the punchline: "Hopefully, this brief history lesson is informative enough to repudiate Coulter's reappraisal of McCarthy. For McCarthy was truly a loathsome politician whose name has been associated deservedly with the phenomenon called McCarthyism. No amount of whitewashing and willful ignorance can change the central facts of this historical interpretation."(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

jkhny, I think I have said this in another thread in another galaxy, a long, long time ago...but: I was pursuing clarification of the BSA gay policy/excommunication of the UUA - at the council. The SE and lots of support staff were there in order to provide clarification to me. The clarification was that they weren't going to provide any kind of justification or explanation, I was supposed to just accept the policy or leave. I can't remember the exact words, it was years ago, but do remember thinking to myself at the time, "I know I fell of the vegetable truck but that was weeks ago and I think I can read these tea leaves." So I asked a direct question about public criticism. I received a direct answer. As I have observed in other threads, for BSA the freedom of association seems to trump the freedom of speech (so much for using THEIR example for the citizenship badges). Anyway, I decided to focus on the boys and the local unit and to try not to sweat the stuff I clearly do not control. It is for this reason that I AM careful to control access to my identity when voicing my opinions, here and elsewhere, and keep everything I do along those lines way below the radar.

I think there may be a problem with our use of terms here. The term, 'accident', connotes different things for different readers. A REAL accident has no cause that can be prevented through safety measures such as G2SS and may be incapable of prediction. An example of this would be an auto wreck caused by another driver who, say, blows a tire and crosses the center line. Tragic and unintended, but possibly unavoidable. There is also a type of accident in which the persons involved have no intent for it to happen, but which happen through an innocent mistake. An accidental misread of a map, for example, and a wrong turn causes the vehicle to be stranded or enter some other bad situation. Another type, also unintentional, would involve completely avoidable behavior in violation of safety rules but with unintended consequences. One example might be attempting to get through a changing light at an intersection - leading to a bad collision with a vehicle that had the right-of-way. And there are actions that are completely careless of any safety concerns, say, driving the church bus at 80 mph down two-lane roads (or any road for that matter) to shorten the time, or allowing everyone to go boating without the required life jackets - that may lead to events that are sometimes referred to as 'accidents'. These, are regrettable in retrospect and perhaps unintentioned, but they are completely avoidable, at least in part, and I argue that they are not true accidents. An avoidable personal decision by a person in a leadership capacity has placed others at risk and caused harm. At least part of the event was intentional: the decision to take that risk and engage in the unsafe behavior. 'Accident insurance' mostly likely will apply in all cases but coverage, as noted, may not be forthcoming for the last examples. 'Liability insurance' in each of these cases, also will likely be judged differently. Like the others here, I struggle to understand the legal consequences of all of these but ultimately, as has been noted, the courts and a jury of our peers will likely make the final judgement. And, in my experience with insurance companies (whether accident or liability), these are all considered on a case-by-case basis. I suspect BSA takes a similar approach. Better to follow the rules, play it safe, get there late if necessary, and hope a meteorite doesn't land on us. And, ahem, hang onto that personal liablity policy.

As I understand it (and I was merely catching butterflies as a little boy when the hearings occurred) evidence, if it existed, was less important than using public fear of the red menace to advance his (McCarthy's) political ambitions. But a better feeling for McCarthy can be achieved by examining his close associates, Roy Cohn and David Schine. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAschine.htm http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/r/ro/roy_cohn.html Cohn was the more prominent of the two (Schine was a minor character but he was Cohn's sex partner at the time). Cohn's deceptions were more complex than McCarthy's. Cohn was a homophobic homosexual who was eventually disbarred for unethical and unprofessional conduct. He died of AIDS back in 1986, ten years before Schine died in a plane crash. For a glimpse into Cohn's practice before he was disbarred see: http://www.carpenoctem.tv/mafia/cohn.html as well as a photo of him the way I remember him. Edited part: Looking at that photo again, I am reminded of an elementary school saying, "beauty is only skin deep.... but ugly is to the bone." This guy must have inspired the original author of that saying. While we're at it, McCarthy died two years after his censure, of alcoholism.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Nothing betrays fitness and adipose tissue like gravity. Perhaps the issue is really aging combined with a lifestyle that is similar to that of many of the boys, sedentary and caloric.

Yes, the original post was rather long. The question that caught my attention was: "Why is BSA throwing out critics instead of responding to their challenges?" It presumes 1) that public criticism is sufficient in itself to have membership revoked and 2) that BSA does not respond to the criticisms. I have insufficient data to establish 1) as a definite trend. And for 2), I think it depends on the specific challenge that is handed to BSA. But with regard to 1), I have several times been warned not to air my criticisms publicly unless I am willing to risk loss of membership. While I can't be sure, I nevertheless take the warning seriously. Do any of you know if this is true? Hypothetically, for a leader who has no other membership transgressions, what would it take in the form of public criticism to get the ax?

On Josepth McCarthy: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/60.htm

"I did not know then how much was ended. When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can still see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with eyes young. And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard. A people's dream died there. It was a beautiful dream . . . . the nation's hoop is broken and scattered. There is no center any longer, and the sacred tree is dead." Black Elk recalls the massacre at Wounded Knee. Neihardt, J.G. 1979. Black Elk Speaks. University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln. 270 pp. It's worth a read or two. What we did there was not noble. It was without honor.

Thescout, that is correct...meaning that some scholars do - they're merely in the minority opinion. I'm not choosing sides here. Rather I was merely curious as to why you are disgusted at the comparison.

Thescout, I'm not sure I understand why you find the 'genocide' comparison disgusting, only that you do. Please explain. In case anyone is interested, some credible scholars think it WAS genocide, others don't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_population The answer seems to center on whether or not there was intent, which there certainly was by some, but not by others of the Europeans. Bon apetite

gregtlaw, welcome to the forums, even if ever so briefly. I both respect your decision regarding your son and I sympathize with what you say and feel. I agree with what you say. If you search around these forums you will see that quite a few others also tend to agree. I know this provides little consolation but as I have told my other gay friends, one day we will prevail. In the meantime we have to keep plugging away. Best wishes.

I can just hear Humphrey Bogart right now, "It's the stuff...that (myths) are made of..." The assumption is being made here that the term 'creator' refers to one or more supernatural beings that we may worship as God(s). Alternatively, it could be mother nature, father time, or one of the alien creatures in 'Life of Brian' that no-one seemed to notice. As usual, Star Trek (the historical documents) provides a cautionary parable on this subject in episode 37, 'The Changling'. Nomad, a mutated space probe had wandered space - cleansing planets of imperfect life forms and looking for its...'creator'. And guess what? It mistook Captain Kirk as its creator. (It's always all about YOU Shatner!) And for a little while it worked...until it scrambled Uhura's brain and Kirk informed Nomad that she was a woman, one of his biological units. Nomad's reply was that she was a "mass of conflicting impulses". I really get such a charge out of the way my wife slings a shoe at the television during that scene. But ole Nomad knew its creators, or so it thought, until Kirk informed it of its mistake and it proceeded to 'cleanse' itself through the usual well-done pyrotechnics in which a huge explosion is heard in a perfect vacuum. I could be wrong about the 'sound in vacuum' part here. The moral? Keep an eye over your shoulder for all those who think they actually know something about the creator no matter what bizarre and unbelievable form it takes (especially if it looks like William Shatner) or if it takes no form at all. Oh, and watch out for those vacuums, especially if they are named Kirby. Edited to add disclaimer.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Reality. Scout on approved outing accidentally injures member of public. Accident, no malice. Serious injury, substantial medical bills. Lawsuit. BSA attorneys beat back the plaintiff for BSA and leaders. Plaintiff shifts attention, now going after boy's parents. No insurance, no protection. BSA response...good luck. The umbrella policy is worth it.

Actually, torveaux, what you wrote IS very close to what I was taught in elementary school. There were some other 'truths' taught as well: slaves were better off than if they had their freedom, white people HAD to continue the 'peculiar institution' of the South because it was the white man's burden, in most cases slaves actually WANTED to be slaves, etc., etc. Anyone want to champion THOSE claims publicly? H'mmm? Yes, I know the apologists' revisions quite well and their self-deceptions are many. Keep in mind that 'the North' and 'the South' that you refer to regarding the tariffs were regions that were long-before defined by the legal existence of....slavery. So, I'll just quote some of many authorities on the subject, "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war." (from Sydney E. Ahlstrome, in a comprehensive study of religion in America: 'A Religious History of the American People', Yale University Press,1972, p. 649) Also, for the webaholic this site advertises itself as a fair-and-balanced treatment of the quesion: http://members.tripod.com/~greatamericanhistory/gr02013.htm it's punch-line? I quote, "So-was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights." For those who read books, I refer you to Kenneth Stamp's 'Causes of the Civil War' for the same conclusion. Or read what Southerners said about it themselves at the time. For example, Arthur Hayne in his letter to President Buchanan said, "Slavery with us is no abstraction - but a great and vital fact. Without it our every comfort would be taken from us...Nothing short of separation from the Union can save us." Or read the actual declarations of secession. I have done this. They are explicit about the reasons for secession. Guess what? Slavery. Or read Walter Edgar's 'South Carolina, a History' for a less-direct path to the same conclusion. I quote from page 352, about mid-way in the book, "South Carolinians left the Union in order to preserve, protect, and defend themselves, their families, their homes, and the good order and harmony of their community from the horrors they feared a Republican administration and abolition would bring: race war, economic disaster, political subjugation, and social equality. With freedom, the state's black majority would turn on its former masters and butcher them, as had occurred in Haiti. Not only would South Carolinians' capital investments in slaves be lost, but without slavery blacks would not be an effective labor force; therefore, the value of agricultural land, buildings, and machinery would decline. If black Carolinians were given the right to vote, their numbers would overwhelm the white minority in two-thirds of the state's thirty districts. Any statewide elections would be controlled by the black majority. Social equality would bring with it the possibility of racial amalgamation." I admire his willingness not to mince words. This book is a masterpiece of history and readability. The seeds of the conflict leading to the Civil War were sown prior to the Revolution, indeed back to the earliest days of the formation of the southern colonies and the colonization of the Caribbean. To understand the 'cause', one must understand the history long before the event itself. One must read some, though. Edited part: Oops, I meant to add that Torveaux is right on one thing, my opinion of Lee is, after all, only my opinion and I am painfully aware of how small a minority I join in that view. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Welcome to the forums, David14011. You'll quickly see that there's no need to sugarcoat your thoughts in these forums. Go ahead and write what you really think. This unit has active participation by women at nearly all events. No problem at all, for the men OR the boys.

Thanks Kudu, that explains it. I haven't missed the delicious irony, by the way, that the writer urging calm and constructive conversations to avoid disruption is.....Anarchist.

I am detecting an interaction of a personal nature here. Respondent 1 has communicated a concern that he has. This concern may or may not be valid. Respondent 2 has, in the past, expressed resentment when he has perceived that another person has spoken for him or interpreted his thoughts or motives. Respondent 2, nevertheless, is doing just that to respondent 1. Invoking "Courteous", wouldn't it be courteous to let respondent 1 speak for himself and to let the readers form their own conclusions as to the validity of his concerns? Wouldn't this be an application of the golden rule? Or am I wrong?

I can't disagree with you regarding 'recognition'. Recognition is something that, to me, comes from within the person. Recognition, knowledge within one's own mind, of having contributed to another's life is, in fact, what I was referring to. 'Appreciation', on the other hand (the word to which the topic of the thread refers), is something that comes from without and must be given by someone else. That is the part I don't 'get'. Edited part: OK, I see that you are treating the terms synonymously while I am using them in a different sense. Sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I find this discussion interesting. I agree that the new requirement seems harmless. It also seems unnecessary. I am more persuaded by ASM7 and I agree with evmori that it would be interesting to learn the motives for its addition at this time. I note that if a SM unilaterally decides, RIGHT NOW, to require this for advancement to first class, he would be guilty of adding to the requirements of a program that, as of right now, seems to be sufficient without it. Regardless of intent, however, the effect can be predicted within bounds. In effect, it is an expansion whose progression depends on some simple attributes. If from this time forward, every new first class scout will have contacted at least one other non-scout, and if his communication successfully recruits some fraction of the contacted boys into scouting, then the number of potential contacts expands geometrically, compounded by the added recruitment. There will be a 1:1 ratio of contacts adding some fractional increase to normal recruitment. Under ideal conditions, and on the assumption that no targeted boy will be contacted more than once, under this model either every available boy will eventually be saturated by contacts with doubling times dependent on actual recruitment rates... or else a lot of them will get the message multiple times - perhaps thusly providing even more probability that they will succumb to the message (even greater recruitment). One wonders, then, WHEN will the demand for contacts exceed the number of potential targets? "The suspense is terrible...I hope it will last." It is an interesting mathematical problem and I think I will mention it to some boys I know who are precocious in that subject. It could provide some fun for them.

As I remember, 'Jack-be-nimble' referred to a candlestick, not a campfire. And nothing in the rhyme mentioned that the candle was necessarily burning at the time either, although I suppose it would be more likely than not. Eamonn, if I read something like the statement you quote about canoeing in an unsafe manner, I would interpret it to be sarcasm. It just doesn't make sense to me any other way...unless you can place it in a different context. So where did it come from?

One of the many things I seem not to 'get' is this need for appreciation. I think successful completion of a mission should be its own source of satisfaction. This weekend, I took about 40 boys and their parents on a nature hike and, after finding snakes, insects, all kinds of plants and trees, a really big frog, and teaching them all sorts of things they never knew, the looks on those boys faces was sufficient in itself. They had a great time and they learned a few things as well. What more could anyone ask?

Sounds like your courses were well worth the time, Scoutldr. Most of my volunteer colleagues have adopted an approach in which we just focus on the boys and don't sweat the BS. But it would be good to get some meaningful training for future volunteers and those of us who are still receptive. Since you have had a lot of experience in these matters, do you have any ideas on how to change things?

I am associated with another Southern academic institution. I have learned that U. of New Orleans will be effectively closed for at least one semester. We just had one of their faculty join ours temporarily and students from there are being admitted here (bending a few admission rules in the process) at least temporarily. What position did you plan to accept there, just curious?

Hunt, again I can only speak from my own experience. However, although I agree that training is absolutely essential to deliver the best program, I have a qualifying observation. I think the volunteers are as good as they have ever been - better even, prior to training. In this area, however, training is deficient. That is, the trainers are often less-informed than some of those being trained and almost always not prepared to assist with the tough questions that are sometimes raised in these forums. Training has become a 'checkoff' activity to satisfy some bureaucratic demand and the content, delivered by videotape in many cases, is almost never examined in any depth. I can't explain why this situation exists. It almost seems that BSA isn't really interested in the program at times. Most of the troops in this area are doing fairly well (this unit is doing great). And this is under the leadership of volunteers who have received deficient training, or none at all. So if 'poor delivery of the program due to lack of training' affects membership, I can't detect it...I simply can detect when the program is not delivered accurately and when rules and policies are not followed. It doesn't seem to make much difference to the families.