VH_50

This is NOT a troll . . . it's an honest question, and part of my ongoing attempt to understand Lee's public image. Being in the history business, and living in Georgia (a Yankee in exile), I've heard these arguments many times . . . and I still don't understand the fascination with Robert E. Lee. Can somebody who *likes* the guy explain to me why they find him admirable? I'll grant you that he was a brilliant commander . . . but so was Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. I'll grant you that he was (by all accounts) a nice guy . . . but so (by all accounts) was Karl Donitz, whose U-boats shot our merchant ships to pieces in 1942-43. I'll even grant you that he deeply and truly believed he was doing the right thing, and that God was on his side . . . but so did Tim McVeigh. We don't name stuff after foreigners who took up arms against the U. S. government in organized warfare, or wackos like McVeigh who did it on their own. We don't celebrate the more odious members of the Confederacy ("Bloody Bill" Anderson or Nathan Bedford Forrest, say) . . . at least most people don't any more. Why is Lee exempt from thi

Here's another vote for the works of Robert Heinlein (virtually anything he published in the 1950s), which were Scouting-age favorites for both me and my (now college-age) stepson. The astronomy's now obsolete, but the adventure holds up well. If there are still boys out there who like the Horatio Hornblower sea stories, the first ten volumes or so of Alexander Kent's (similar) Richard Bolitho series are a good follow-up. Alistair MacLean ("The Guns of Navarone," etc.) is marvellous for contemporar--mid-20th century--adventure with no sex and (at most) PG-13 violence. Somebody suggested Caroline Alexander's _The Bounty_. In that same category, *don't* miss Alfred Lansing's _Endurance_, about the Shackelton expedition to the Antarctic . . . one of the great true-adventure books of all time. Happy reading!

There's something to be said for minutely studying the wording of this or that requirement for evidence of intent, but we should also keep in mind that inertia is a powerful thing . . . references to "catalogs" and "mail" may simply be leftovers that nobody has an elegant alternative for. I haven't seen letter-size carbon paper in use for 25 years, but we still put "cc:" at the bottom of business letters. :-)

Just a reminder that the "call people what they prefer to be called" principle also extends to *which* honorific you use . . . This can be an issue with PhD's (who often prefer to avoid being "Dr." except in professional settings), but it's especially true for women who keep their birth names (for personal or professional reasons) after marriage. The wife of Bob Smith and mother of Bobby Smith may well be Mary Jones, and thus properly "Ms Jones" NOT "Mrs. Smith." It may seem like a small thing but like a lot of small things, it's worth making the small bit of extra effort and getting it right.

Fat Old Guy writes: "Last time I checked, the federal government was supposed to mint money, provide for the common defense and regulate interstate commerce. State and local governments really aren't supposed to do much more than provide an infrastructure." ----- "Supposed to" if you use the strictest and most literal interpretation of the Constitution. A valid position, to be sure, but not the only position--and not one that I find intellectually compelling or politically attractive. (And I'm in good company: Jefferson himself overstepped his presidential authority--if strictly interpreted, anyway--both when he bought Louisiana Territory from France and when he sent Lewis and Clark to have a look at it! )

I'm a liberal because I think that the highest purpose of government is to put the talent and treasure of an entire society to work on behalf of what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature" . . . to ensure that the hungry are fed, the naked clothed, the homeless housed, and the sick healed. I'm a liberal because I cherish our free market economy, but believe that government can and should play a role in curbing its worst excesses . . . treating workers as a disposable commodity, pursuing profit at all costs, and doing long-term damage to the environment for short-term gain. I'm a liberal because I think that the government has a role to play in supporting the arts, the pure sciences, the humanities, and other things that don't make us a profit but do make us human. I'm a liberal because I think that (until he or she has given us reason to believe otherwise) *every* individual, regardless of race, religion, sex, age, class, political affiliation, immigration status, or national origin is just as much a human being--and just as deserving of decent treatment--as I, my family, and my friends. I'm a liberal because the 20th-century US government programs that I most admire--the Pure Food and Drug Act, the GI Bill, rural electrification, the national park system, the Marshall Plan, the Voting Rights Act of 1964, Title IX, Head Start, NASA--tend to be the products of "liberal" administrations. The amusing thing about all this (to me) is that by the standards of eastern Massachusetts (born and raised); Providence, RI (college); and Madison, Wisconsin (grad school) I'm a mainstream liberal . . . but by the standards of Cobb County, GA (where I've lived these 10 years) I'm some kind of leftist radical. My wife (whose politics are similar to mine), is fond of observing of herself: "My [college] students think I'm an ultra-leftist and a radical feminist . . . and if they ever meet a real example of either they're going to be deeply shocked." VH-50

Laurie makes a good point . . . being able to write with a pen or pencil and do basic arithmetic "by hand" is still valuable, and will likely remain so. You can still depend on there being times when you need to write and add/subtract without a machine handy. On the other hand . . . the calculator has basically made it pointless to learn how to take square roots "manually" or use a table of logarithms. The odds of you needing to do one of those things in a situation where you can't pick up a calculator are *really* long. The question is, which category does (say) Morse code (other than S-O-S) fall in? :-) VH 50 P.S. I'll get off this soapbox for good now; it's just that I teach courses on "Technology and Society" at an engineering school, and . . . P.P.S. "GPS" is "Global Positioning System"--highly accurate satellite navigation developed for the military and (now) available in hand-held form for outdoorsy types. Should have written it out the first time, but I was being lazy. Sorry!

"Back in the day" (late 1970s, when I earned it) splices were also required for the Small Boat Sailing MB, though I doubt (given the shift to braided, synthetic lines) that they still are . . . or should be. It's an interesting question, though: How long the program should continue to require skills made obsolete by changes in technology or culture (morse code, splicing, axemanship) . . . and how quickly it should adopt new skills requirements based on new technologies? Idle thought: How ubiquitous will GPS need to get before proficiency with it is required for first class? VH_50

Just an addendum: Regardless of whether or not a council has the *right* (by policy or selective approval) to limit a given councilor to 5 or 6 badges, that number seems artificially low to me. Two reasons: 1) It's my experience as a long-time advancement chair that about 24 of the badges account for 90% of the traffic. I'm a counselor for *many* badges that nobody's ever even asked me about doing (much less completed). The workload issue is, I think, a straw man. 2) A relatively small set of qualifications can qualify an individual (not even stretching) to teach a *lot* of merit badges. Virtually any reasonably experienced history teacher could exceed a 6-badge limit by 50% or 100% without even getting past his or her professional skills: Content: citizenship x 3, am heritage, am cultures Skills: reading, scholarship, communications, pub. speaking Maybe: computers, genealogy, indian lore, am labor The same is true of many people with professional training in art, engineering, or natural science . . . or people deeply involved in certain hobbies, like boating and nature study. Let's not sell all those multi-talented people in the Scouting movement short!

Discussion of leaders modelling character and integrity for the scouts got me thinkng: Why assume that character and integrity are gendered? That being a "man of character and integrity" is one thing and a "woman of character and integrity" is another? Surely it's not that we (as a society) take character and integrity for granted in women and find it so rare in men that we have to hunt for examples! :-)

I am (as a working writer) not one to take copyright lightly, and would never urge anyone to support video piracy. . . BUT: Disney is far from being the wronged innocent here. They have ruthlessly pushed (on more than one occasion, if memory serves) to have copyright law rewritten so that valuable Disney properties (e.g. Mickey Mouse) that *would* have passed into the public domain in the 1990s or early 2000s remain under copyright. I don't object if they want to manipulate the market by (say) creating an artificial scarcity of _Bambi_ tapes by releasing it for three years and then pulling it for ten . . . but it mightily annoys me that they (and their fans in Congress) are willing to rearrange the law for the same purpose.

I am (as a working writer) not one to take copyright lightly, and would never urge anyone to support video piracy. . . BUT: Disney is far from being the wronged innocent here. They have ruthlessly pushed (on more than one occasion, if memory serves) to have copyright law rewritten so that valuable Disney properties (e.g. Mickey Mouse) that *would* have passed into the public domain in the 1990s or early 2000s remain under copyright. I don't object if they want to manipulate the market by (say) creating an artificial scarcity of _Bambi_ tapes by releasing it for three years and then pulling it for ten . . . but it mightily annoys me that they (and their fans in Congress) are willing to rearrange the law for the same purpose.

On a related note . . . I've been amused for some years now that the song "YMCA" has been shorn of its original connections to the gay subculture of the 1970s and become an apolitical, upbeat audience participation song. But trying to present Credence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son" as a rah-rah patriotic anthem just boggles the mind. At least Mercedes had a sense of irony when it started using "Lord, Won't You Buy Me a Mercedes Benz?" in its commercials!

OGE . . . I'd always figured that in the context of the refrain: There won't be any trumpets blowing, Come the judgement day On the bloody morning after One tin soldier rides away. A bloody battlefield on which only a single tin soldier is left standing is a metaphor for total and utter devastation--which the song sees as the *inevitable* result of violence, no matter how "righteous" the motivation for it. [Like many here, I suspect that the movie missed the point of the song . . .]

Re. the alleged decline in belief in evolution as level of education increases (I, too, am skeptical and await a citation): Even if it *is* true, why is it relevant? Scientific theories stand or fall on their ability to explain the relevant evidence in a more coherent way than competing theories. The raw number of people who believe (or don't believe) in a given theory counts for zip in this calculation. Raw numbers of "educated" people who believe (or don't believe) in a given theory count for not much more. "Educated" is too broad and complex a category for that. If I have a PhD in history, does that make my opinion on nuclear physics worth more than the opinion of somebody with only a high school diploma? Would you go to an oral surgeon to have your appendix taken out (if you had a choice)? Numbers of people *with relevant expertise* who believe (or don't believe) in a given theory *can* be a valuable barometer of the theory's value. If 99 of 100 working astronomers you talk to tell you that astrology is hogwash or that the Big Bang is real, or 99 of 100 working biologists tell you that "nothing in nature makes sense except in light of evolution," it's usually time to pay attention. Science isn't a democracy . . . it's a meritocracy, and a pretty ruthless one, at that.

Re: Rooster's comment about the [Vietnam-era] media "doing their best to confuse the hell out of our generation" Or perhaps the media was doing its best to fully and accurately portray a war that was inherently confusing . . . There was, after all: the intermingling of friend and foe, the complex internal politics of South Vietnam, the vaguely understood roles (and motives) of China and the USSR, the lack of "set piece" battles, the moral complexities of fighting a guerilla army with technology designed for a stand-up fight with the USSR, the deep political divisions at home, the seemingly arbitrary limits on air and ground operations drawn by Washington, the less than honest reports of some field commanders (and some politicians), and so on. Maybe some wars don't lend themselves to crystal-clear explanations. Maybe, for that matter, no war does. My two cents . . .

On a lighter note . . . NJCubScouter (or anyone else interested in Richard III), If you've never read Josephine Tey's novel _The Daughter of Time_, it's well worth a try. The plot involves a Scotland Yard detective who (to pass the time while recovering from surgery) decides to investigate the death of the "Princes in the Tower" as if it were a contemporary murder case. He begins to suspect that, despite Shakespeare's literary hatchet-job, Richard III may have been innocent . . . Great fun!

KoreaScouter makes a fair point about the need to be careful when applying modern standards to historical figures, but if we're going to admit the "times were different then" argument . . . 1) We need to be honest about it and explain *how* times were different then, even if the differences are ugly. If we're going to excuse Jefferson's ownership of slaves on the grounds that "times were different," we should also acknowledge that most Enlightenment thinkers (TJ included) believed that non-white races were biologically inferior . . . 2) We need to acknowledge that, even when "times were different," there were often people who objected to the way things were on the same grounds that we would. If *our* criticisms of Henry Ford as a tight-fisted anti-Semite who tried to micro-manage his workers' private lives and sent armed thugs to attack strikers aren't legitimate . . . what about Ford's contemporary critics, who brought similar charges? 3) We need to be *very* careful not to fall into a double standard . . . using the "times were different" argument to excuse the behavior of people we like, but refusing to apply it to people we don't like (or don't care about). Is it logical to gloss over the racism in Washington and Jefferson's ownership of slaves, but deplore it in the lynch mobs of the 1920s or the segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s? 4) We need to ask ourselves whether we'd be willing to apply the equivalent standard to other societies: "Different cultures do things differently, and we ought not to judge them strictly by our standards." If we're willing to cut the Puritans a little slack for the witches they burnt, are we equally willing to cut (say) the Aztecs a little slack for their use of human sacrifice in their religious rituals? Let me finish where I started. I think KoreaScouter makes a good point: Seeing the past on its own terms is essential, IMHO, to understanding it. BUT, declaring that "It's wrong to judge the actions of historical figures by contemporary standards" is *not* a position to adopt lightly.

CNN, I think, was missing the point when they asked visitors to their website whether the guard was being patriotic *or* insubordinate. Looks to me like he was being both . . . surely, in a democracy founded by a revolution, it's possible to engage in civil disobedience *because* you love your country?

The government has, at least in this century, been willing to acommodate conscientious objectors up to a point . . . so long as they agree to serve in a way that doesn't require them to bear arms. BUT . . . 1) What about people whose objection to war is so strong that they cannot, in conscience, aid a warring government in *any* way (if I'm an army medic, and I do my job well, I'm ultimately supporting the process of taking human life)? 2) What about people who do not object to bearing arms against an armed, uniformed enemy but refuse (on religious grounds) to knowingly attack civilians. Say--a pilot who refuses an order to bomb an enemy leader's home in the middle of the night because of the risk of killing the intended victim's spouse, kids, or servants. 3) What about people who (while having no objection to wartime violence in principle), object to the current, *particular* war as unjust and unprincipled. Say--the Israeli reservists who refued to serve in the Occupied Territories. Until we've seen how the government handles cases like these, I suspect we shouldn't be too placid about official tolerance of those who place God before Country in wartime.

One clarification of my earlier post, in light of subsequent comments: I actually meant the "flowing lava" analogy as a contrast to (and a gentle poke at) the glacier analogy, with the lava standing for BSA's apparently steadfast commitment to banning gay leaders. My point was (supposed to be) that just as even seemingly unstoppable "forces of nature" (lava yesterday, maybe glaciers tomorrow)can be stopped (or at least diverted) so too seemingly entrenched institutional polices (women barred from the voting booth yesterday, maybe gays barred from BSA leadership tomorrow) can be changed. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused ["Remember, metaphors should only be used by trained professionals--don't try this at home! :-)]

As long as we're playing with geological metaphors: Behold the lava flowing down the side of a volcano. It, too, seems inexorable, unstoppable, and guided by the hand of the Almighty . . . more than capable of destroying those who are foolish enough stand in its way rather than submitting to its power. Except that, at a place called Heimay in Iceland, in the 1970s, a stubborn group of people led by a wild-eyed engineer decided that it might be possible to save their harboor, their livelyhood, and thus their town by cooling the front edge of the lava flow with seawater and thus diverting the lava in a new direction, away from the harbor. [see "Cooling the Lava," in _The Control of Nature_ by John McPhee (1989)] And it worked. "Do not doubt that a small, committed group of people can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead Passing the knot . . .

OGE & Rooster-- Hmmm . . . we may be having a "tastes great/less filling" argument here. :-) I didn't mean to suggest that history ought to be taught without facts. Clearly, as you and others have pointed out, students who are being taught to analyze historical events have to know something about the events they're analyzing (it does no good to ask whether Jefferson was a successful president unless you have a grasp what he did as president). Facts and the interpretation of facts have to go hand in hand . . . though reasonable people can and do disagree about the proper proportion of each. Nor am I trying to defend teachers who present theirinterpretation of historical events as the only possible Truth and refuse to entertain the possibility that a student might construct a well-reasoned, well-supported, but different interpretation of the same facts. What I don't buy is the claim that we ought to teach only the "facts" of history. . . a position espoused by many conservatives but perhaps not (in retrospect) by either of you. One problem with the just-the-facts view, it seems to me, is that it's rarely as simple as it seems. Once you get beyond bare-bones names and dates, you quickly run up against the need to define what's "fact" and what's "interpretation." It's a fact that Columbus made landfall on a Carribean island (probably San Salvador) in October 1492 . . . but is it also a fact that, in so doing, he "discovered America?" Doing so is, in itself, an act of interpretation: How do you define "discover" or, for that matter, "America?" I'd much prefer that we, as a society, accept that interpretation is an inseparable part of thinking about history, teach our young people to do it well, and (absolutely crucial) judge their interpretations not by how well they agree with our own but by how well they fit the evidence. I'm not sure if this would create patriots, but I'm pretty sure that, done right, it'd create informed and thoughtful citizens. [somebody cue the theme music from "Mister Smith Goes to Washington" :-)]

Weekender-- No offense taken, and no quarrel with "love your neighbor as yourself" or the clear intent of "do unto others . . ." which I've always read as "treat others with the same respect that you would want others to extend to you." My only quarrel is with people who seem to want to apply "Do unto others" in the narrow, literal sense of blindly assuming that others share *all* their preferences, not just the big ones like a desire for respect and fair dealing. I'm not persuaded that God intended for people to say (small-scale example that I actually ran into at a fixed-menu banquet in Iowa): "We love pork chops, and are always happy to have them for supper. Therefore we'll serve pork chops to all our guests (regardless of whether they might be Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or vegetarians who would--if asked--not wish to be served pork)."

Looks like the original thread may have run its course, but reading it all in one go, the following thought struck me: Perhaps we ought to make a distinction between "great leader" and "admirable (or, if you prefer, heroic) person." Both are important categories, but neither one necessarily implies the other: Hitler was a great leader (charismatic, forceful, decisive, compelling) BUT otherwise a loathsome human being. Captain Bligh, of Mutiny on the Bounty fame, was admirable for his single-minded determination to save the 18 men who stayed loyal to him (even though it meant sailing 4000 miles across the Pacific in an open boat), BUT first on the Bounty and later as governor of Australia he was spectacular failure as a leader. Just a thought (occasioned by the realization that, much as I admire John Lennon and Sally Ride, I wouldn't call either one a "leader," great or otherwise).