CalicoPenn

"Why is it creepy for me if a 50+ year old guy can do it without it being creepy? " What makes you think it wouldn't be creepy if I, a 50 year old guy, started calling a Scout "No Pants"??

Nicknames are all fun and games until a 12-year old you call Bacon snaps when he's 17 and much larger and takes a hammer to someone who calls him Bacon one time too many. Or when a girl you call Pigpen jumps off a bridge. Think that's farfetched? It happens all the time. Heck, I broke my older brother's nose in front of the entire family when he called me a nickname I had told him I didn't like one too many time, and that wasn't a derogatory name, I just didn't like it. A lot of the troubled youth I work with are really bothered by the "non-derogatory" nicknames they're called but grin and bear it because they want to fit in, they don't want to be known as whiners, or they think of themselves as too weak to do anything about it. So they internalize it - and they never let on that they're hurt by it so that some people can say garbage like "If they don't tell me it's a problem, it's not a problem". Nicknames can be a form of bullying - and an insiduous one as it's often overlooked because so many adults think of it as just kids being kids. We don't see physical harm, so it can't be bullying, right? Tell that to the father who, after reading his son's suicide note, wails that he didn't know his son didn't like to be called "Chips". That's not to say that all nicknames are bad - but it's a mistake to claim using nicknames isn't name-calling or bullying because it's all in clean fun. It's a mistake to ignore someone elses concern that it might be an issue and call it "political correctness" run amok. So how do we safely use nicknames? My suggestions would be that first and foremost, adult leaders do not give Scouts nicknames and, unless asked to do so by the Scout, do not use nicknames, and even when asked by a Scout, think about whether the nickname the Scout uses for himself is something you'd want to call a boy in the line at McD's surrounded by strangers. Scout named Howard prefers to be called HD? Ok. Scout named Bill wants to be called booger? Be a grownup and call him Bill - tell him if he wants his friends to call him that, fine, but you won't do it because it's undignified. Second - let the Scout choose his own nickname - that means being prepared to nip in the bud nicknames given to him by other Scouts. Here's a hint - if Scouts are calling someone "puppy face" and he responds by saying "call me "killer", it means he really doesn't like that name. But don't wait for someone to say they don't like it either - when a lad never refers to himself by the nickname others give him, that's a clue he doesn't like it. Got a guy you all call "bigfoot" and when a new guy comes in and he doesn't say something like "hey, call me bigfoot", there's a really good chance he's not as into the whole bigfoot name as you think he is. If a bunch of Scouts are playing a game of football or something and 5 minutes after being called by his nickname, a Scout wanders away from the fun to sit under a tree? Don't automatically assume it's because he's tired - it could very well be a sign that he's not digging the nickname. One last thought - nicknames are often meant to be a sign of affection - frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if some parents didn't think that a 22 year old ASM giving their kids nicknames wasn't just a little but creepy.

My question is what does the BSA get by partnering with the AHG? I undertand the BSA partnering with the Arbor Day Foundation, the NRA, etc - but why the AHG and not the Girl Scouts or Campfire programs? The AHG has about 19,000 members - just what does it truly offer? I see this as pretty one-sided - the BSA get's nothing but more speculation that it's trying to tun itself into a Christian only organization but the AHG gets a lot of prestige by being associated with a long-standing and at one time a well-respected youth organization (My opinion - it's no longer well-respected - it's still respected, but the one-time universal respect has taken quite a beating these last 20 years).

SSS: Whiplash. Though it was meant to portray the American West, it's filming location in Australia didn't quite match the American West so it was qickly re-visioned as "Americanized Australian Western" set and filmed in Australia but still looking remarkably American rather than Asutralian - except, of course, when the show featured Australian Aborigines and Australian Rangers. It starred Peter Graves (who was a brother of Gunsmoke's James Arness). One of the writers went on to write and produce one of the most famous westerns ever (though most would say it was science fiction and not a western) - Gene Roddenberry, who created Star Trek (his Wagon Train to the Stars).

"Da ethic and norms of private association in a civil democratic society are to leave folks alone to do their own thing, not to lobby from without or within to get 'em to change." Interesting notion and one I might agree with if we weren't talking about the BSA which defines one of its 12 points of the Scout Law as "A Scout is obedient. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them." I just can't find anything in the BSA's definition of Obedient as "leave folks alone to do their own thing" or "if you don't like it, leave". Thinking about it, I have to change my potential agreement with the original notion - forget about not agreeing because we're talking about the Boy Scouts - I'll take it further - I might agree except I was a Boy Scout - it doesn't matter if its the Boy Scouts, the Government, the Audubon Society, the NRA that I disagree with, because I was a Boy Scout, if I think any of these groups rules are unfair, I have an obligation, as one who takes the Scout Law seriously and who still tries to live it even at age 50, to try to have them changed in an orderly manner, even if that means taking them on from the outside.

Normally, I might suggest that the committee member representing the Girl Scouts had left the committee and a replacement hasn't yet been found and that SP is reading more into it than it deserves - but, I've cruised the Archdiocese of Seattle's Office for Youth and Young Adult Ministry website and found some interesting little things that should make one step back and ponder for a bit. For instance, under Catholic Scouting: Emblem Books and Medals, it tells how one can order the Boy and Girl Scout Emblem Books and Medals then lists the different medal programs - one set for Boy Scouts and one set for American Heritage Girls, Campfire Girls, Etc. Apparently, in the heading, the Girl Scouts, the largest youth organization for girls, is now an "Etc.". The descriptions talk about Girl Scouts and Campfire but the section heading doesn't mention the Girl Scouts. Looking at the committee list, one finds specific members representing AHG and the Boy Scouts, but no specific member representing the Girl Scouts. There is a vacant position listed - Membership: Scout/Venture but no vacant position listed for Girl Scouts (of course, that could mean that the Girl Scouts have decided to no longer ask someone to serve on this committee). The two members that specifically are listed as Boy Scout liasons each represent a different council. What's interesting is that both of these folks are also troop coordinators for a local AHG troop. The person listed under training is also involved as an assistant troop leader in the AHG. The BSA is well represented - of the 12 members listed, only one hasn't been involved in Boy Scouting in some way, either as a Scout, a leader, or a parent, outside the Catholic Committee on Scouting and that person is a Priest. One of the BSA council liasons did earn the Girl Scout Gold award but only one person, a member at large, is a Girl Scout Leader. Now if one were a conspiracy theorist, one might come to the conclusion that the AHG folks are marginalizing the girls scouts through their influence on the board, but can't completely do away with supporting them because of the religious award medals. That is, if one were a conspiracy theorist.

Speaking of thread hijacks... I knew I was a grown-up when I heard the finale of the William Tell Overture at the Wilhelm Tell Festival in New Glarus, Wisconsin and didn't immediately think of the Lone Ranger. Of course, that was just last Labor Day just a couple of months before my 50th - and it lasted a whole hour since the next time I heard it, an hour later in town, I couldn't stop my self from hollering "Hiyo Silver, Away!"

As a leader, I would be questioning why these two mothers were driving up a day after the Troop left on the trip in the first place - the Troop must have had enough leaders and drivers to accomodate the trip schedule so it wasnt to add any neccessary leadership support. If they showed up with two crew members when the crew wasn't part of the trip (and it wouldn't have mattered if they were girls or boys not in the Troop), I would have told them we couldn't accomodate them and send them on their way. The crew issue is a committee/program leader issue - let them deal with it. You're unclear on whether the driver made the determination that your son couldn't fit in the car or if you did. If the driver made the determination, you are certainly justified in being disappointed, but she should get the benefit of the doubt that she made that decision based on safety issues and nothing more. And as unfair as it was to your son, there are family dynamics at play here too - though it may have been last minute, there are very few parents who will tell their own children no in order to take someone else's child to camp. If, on the other hand, the driver was still willing to take your son up to camp and you said no, then don't blame the driver for your choice. It was also your and your son's choice to skip going up on Thursday for a school activity - now here's the thing - the typical school activities this time of year are sports and band practives - and I know that missing these things can have future consequences on being allowed to participate in these things later - but you still have a choice - and more importantly, these activities are highly likely to cause conflict with Scouting activities in the future. My troop, and many others, had members of the football team and band who had to be at games on Friday nights (and some that had to be at games on Saturday afternoons - JV squads). It was not unusual for some Troops to run transportation on two shifts - the first shift bringing up the bulk of the unit starting early evening and the second shift leaving directly from the high school parking lot either after the game ended or after the away bus got back to the school (if the football players were playing away games, they couldn't leave directly from the away school - team rules - everyone rides the bus to and from the school - no exceptions (not even Grandma died - no funerals at 10:30 at night). I understand how disappointing it is for your son - but choices get made, and sometimes the best laid plans get waylaid. There is some sound advice here on taking this situation as a learning opportunity. and ask yourself this - you say one of the reasons your son was really looking forward to this trip was to "make a strong impact on his new troop." What kind of impact on his troop is going to be made if either of you make this into a huge issue.

"1. Humans are more important than Equipment. The Scouts are our customers. Without them, there is no need for the Scouter. Motivated, skilled, knowledgeable Scouters benefit Scouts more than equipment." Not what I meant so let me make it clearer: 1. The Scouts are our customers. Without them, there is no need for the Scouter. 2. People are more important than Equipment. Motivated, skilled, knowledgeable Scouters benefit Scouts more than equipment.

If I may be so bold as to suggest an addition - at Number 1: Scouts are our customers: Everything we do, we do for the Scouts. Without them, there is no need for Scouters.

If some of you remember Wild Bill Hickock from television, then you guys are a lot older than I thought you were, and so, for that matter, is TV...Wild Bill died in 1876. AZMike: To the obscure question: I think it might be Kato (of Green Hornet fame), but I'm a bit unsure because Keye Luke played Kato in the 1940's serials, then voiced a villain that was defeated by Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon, and of course Bruce Lee played Kato in the television series. The reason I'm unsure is that Keye Luke didn't voice Kato in the radio version. Raymond Toyo (Tokutaro Hayashi), Rollon Parker and Michael Tolan (in that order) voiced Kato on radio. Oh - and I may as well answer the Lone Ranger question - The Lone Ranger's grand-nephew was Britt Reid, aka the Green Hornet.

How could you guys forget Gopher - err, former US Representative Fred Grandy (R-Iowa)?? On the other side, you can ad Kal Penn, who left House to work for Obama. "That's like asking which organization called for the Occupy Wall Street movement" Actually, I can answer this - the call for Occupy Wall Street came from a magazine published in Canada but available here (because it consider's itself a North American magazine, not a Canadian magazine) call Adbusters.

"Yeah, I'm still trying to remember where I heard there was a boycott of Chick-fil-A?" Maybe here? http://www.wric.com/story/19124875/gay-rights-groups-call-for-chick-fil-a-boycott" I read this story - it claims that gay rights groups have called for a boycott but never names a single one that has called for a boycott - it mentions the mayors that we've talked about by name, it mentions the Jim Henson company pulling their toys and giving GLAAD a donation, it mentions a regional gay rights group commenting on Cathy's comments without calling for a boycott, it mentions the Family Research Council and Mike Huckabee and his call for the "anti-boycott", but it doesn't once name any gay rights group in relation to calling for a boycott. In fact, it doesn't identify anyone who has actually called for a boycott - just nebulous "gay rights groups" that it doesn't name, which is hardly proof that anyone actually called for a boycott and reads more like sloppy reporting of someone who thinks he heard somewhere in some grapevine or another that someone may have said something. "Or here? http://www.examiner.com/article/howard-stern-calls-on-his-listeners-to-boycott-chick-fil-a" I've already mentioned that Ed Helms used the word Boycott - and now Howard Stern, another straight man, sounds off on his own. So far, all we're seeing is some individuals with access to a microphone spouting off. "Or here? http://www.causes.com/causes/788416-boycott-chick-fil-a/actions/1668137" I looked at this - the person who put this together claims 2,000 people have signed this pledge - had it not been posted here, I don't think I ever would have heard of it - and I doubt even the media is tuned into this one - again, another individual calling for action, using a social media website as his microphone, and suggesting a donation to GLAAD, but it's not a gay rights group calling for a boycott and it doesn't seem to be very well known anywhere. I'm still looking for a call for any kind of organized boycott.

I'm still trying to figure out why people think the gay community is boycotting Chic Fil A. I've seen individual calls from boycotts (from Ed Helms, for instance - some actor I'm told though I have no idea who he is), and I've seen individual statements from politicians like the mayor's of Boston and Chicago that were not very positive towards CFA (and didn't call for a boycott) but I've not seen a general call from any of the national gay rights organizations, like Human Rights Campaign or GLAAD calling for a boycott - maybe I missed it, but if I did, it's because it was buried in all the articles about the anti-boycott and the statements of the mayors of some major cities. I'm about ready to call this anti-boycott a preemptive boycott of a boycott that might have been called given a bit more time. The Dixie Chicks boycott? I think it was successful because at that one particular time, the President was flying pretty high in the polls and the support for the Iraq war was very high - no one was really ready to question the wisdom quite yet. Musical acts have, with a few notable exceptions (the Beatles, Elvis, the Rolling Stones, the Who, and Springsteen amongst those), a limited lifespan anyway. When is the last time anyone heard of a major concert by Billy Ray Cyrus? The boycott was successful because it resonated with a lot of people it might not have resonated with just a year later. The Disney Boycott? I presume we're talking about the apparently ongoing call for a boycott from the Southern Baptist muckety mucks? It was doomed to fail from the start - except for a subset of true believers, I think the Southern Baptists over-estimated their influence on the people of their congregation, just as most other denominations do - we may have a lot of people going to church, but the other 166 hours of the week? It's an afterthought, if that - that boycott will resonate with parents who aren't going to buy their children Disney character toys in the first place - the rest of them? Eyerolls and mutterings of "yeah, right - if there isn't a Disney princess doll under the tree come Christmas morning, my precious daughter is liable to knife me in my sleep". Add to that a fairly successful (though short term) anti-boycott by the gay community and the first year of the boycott, Disney's sales went up (and Toys for Tots got an awful lot of Disney toys that year). I think boycotts against national chains are just too unlikely to succeed - it takes a dedicated core group of people to really make a boycott successful, and a core group of 10 isn't big enough to influence national consumer patterns. However, I think boycotts of local businesses have a pretty good chance of success - a core group of 10 in a small town could really have an impact on the success of a local restaurant, or doctor, or grocery, or gas station.

How's this for an answer: The Congressional Charter is important to the Business side of the Boy Scouts of America and has no importance at all to the Program side of the BSA. As for who would get the charter, the answer would be the folks that didn't leave the BSA. If the LDS church were to decide to split off on their own, they would be leaving the BSA and the BSA would retain the charter. SA: I'll just note that GM and Chrysler accepted being "forced" into a structured bankruptcy by the federal government as a condition of receiving taxpayer bail-out loans as an alternative to being forced into a bankruptcy they were unlikely to survive by their creditors.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

I think in this case we need to give the BSA/OA the benefit of the doubt here - even though the Lodge Advisor Handbook was just released, it took some time to develop it and when it was sent to the printer, after all the proofing and editing, etc., it was probably up to date on the policies. Given the date of the operations update, I'd understand why a new policy wasn't included in the new book - it was probably not the policy when the new book was sent to the printer.

"A similar issue is $1 billion in funding paid by government to Planned Parenthood." One: It is not any where near $1 billion. In 2011 it was $363 million - 70 million through Title X funds and $293 million through Medicare. It has not increased by much for 2012 - even with the replacement grants being given in a few states that eliminated funding to Planned Parenthood. Exxageration weakens ones argument. Two: Planned Parenthood receives these funds to provide health services to women all over the country - services like cancer screening and basic health screenings. They get funds through medicare the same way any other clinin gets funds through medicare - as reimbursement for costs incurred in treating patients. Planned Parenthood is the largest network of women's health centers in the United States - they do far more than just serve as a birth control agency and most PP clinincs don't do abortions - they provide direct health services and screenings. Though I don't begrudge the BSA for getting support from the government to run their jamboree, in no way is what they get comparable to what Planned Parenthood receives - Planned Parenthood provides direct services that the government pays for - the BSA provides the government nothing (no, I take that back - they provided them with a mess at Fort AP Hill that the Army had to clean up).

"This new organization y'all are licking your chops over - a Boy Scouts with girls and atheists and no reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and openly gay Scouters and kids announcing their sexual preference, and no pesky Mormons or Evangelicals or orthodox Jews or orthodox Catholics (or Orthodox Catholics, for that matter), or boys who want to be in a group that is just male for just a few times a month - sounds pretty interesting." Well, you almost got it right... What those of us that oppose the stated policy prefer is the "Local Option" at the Chartered Organization Level. Scouts with Boys, Girls, Religious, Non-religious (I'm not going to use the word athiest because even that's not inclusive - what about agnostics, and people that are spiritual but don't necessarily believe in God who aren't athiests, and people who don't identify with the athiests but are athiests in practice), straights and gays. Where an individual's conscience dictates whether he says "To God" in the oath or "under God" in the pledge or remains silent while others say it (because we're reverent, we respect other peoples beliefs, right?), where Mormon, Evangelical Christian, Catholics and Orthodox/Conservative Jews can have units that are for boys and men only that exclude folks not of their religion and can exclude folks that are gay while the neighboring unit sponsored by a Unitarian church or a community organization can have a unit that welcomes everyone regardless of creed, race, religion, gender or orientation and where familes have the right to join the local Scout unit that best fits their views. I know that the BSA has had it's right to freedom of association confirmed but I believe that they should subrogate their right to their members right of freedom of association - allow the members to decide who they wish to associate with at the local (Unit) level and limit national's policies on association to criminal acts.

If this decision of the COR is final, (and the one person that can reverse the COR is the head of the institution) then the answer is to vote with your feet - leave the unit - and take as many Scouts with you as you can to a different or a new unit, and don't forget to tell the head of the institution exactly why you are all leaving the unit, and use such terms as "we no longer trust you". Your former CM was a minister? Maybe his church will be the sponsor of a new unit that you can start.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

I will simply request that folks read NLD's post of July 29 at 8:21 am, which the moderator has not removed (as of this posting), and ask yourselves this: Is NLDScout the type of leader you want for YOUR sons?

Kind of ironic to talk about keeping the OUTing in Scouting when the subject is about what the BSA would look like if the Mormons left Scouting because the BSA started accepting gays. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to see the LDS hierarchy figure out a way to accept the local option while saving face over their previously stated position. The BSA serving as their official youth group for boys does two things for the LDS - 1) it provides a ready-made program (it's expensive to develop and administer your own) and 2) it mainstreams the LDS as a part of American society - The history of the LDS is a study in the American people 's suspicions about a relatvely secretive society (and by that, I mean the LDS has traditions it keeps to themselves - which is fine, but that doesn't help it gain acceptance among "outsiders"). The BSA, being the "All-American organization it is, helps the LDS show that it is every bit as much a part of America as everyone else. While the Marriott family might stop donating to the BSA, it's unlikely the Marriott Corporation will - not with their "Be You, With Us" advertising campaign targeting the gay community which tends to have just a bit more discretionary funds for traveling than many familes do. I suspect the LDS will continue to be a part of the BSA, as will the Catholic Church. It also wouldn't surprise me in the least that a Troop has already awarded the Eagle Scout rank to a Scout that they know is openly gay.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

See Brent, that's the difference between me an you. Though I think tea party goofs and people who discriminate make unnaceptable BSA leaders, I'm not going to demand that they not be allowed to be leaders - I'm going to go ahead with the local option and encourage them to be leaders I'm not involved with. As for your list (ahh, the old slippery slope argument), mental illness can be treated, so I don't think I'd automatically keep someone out that might be manic/depressive if he's taking medication. Depression is a form of mental illness and often never gets diagnosed - you may have people suffering from depression in your leadershp team right now and never know it. Alcoholism? Not going to keep them from being a leader unless it affects their performance. Porn Star? Maybe a current porn star but if it's a mother who posed for Playboy when she was 19, I don't think that's going to keep her out.

Michigan has a Republican Governor, a Republican Senate and a Republican House since January 2011 - are you saying that you couldn't call on one of the GOP members to suggest that this is a ridiculous rule and ask them to put a stop to it?

"I could see the UoS course now: "Gaydar Operations."" Of course that would mean violating the policy to allow a gay leader since everyone knows that straight people can barely tell what shirt matches what pants without Garanimals on them let alone have a decent gaydar. "If a person is discovered to have personality characteristics that make them an unacceptable BSA leader, you deal with that issue when it's discovered or apparent." In my world, people whose personalitys allow them to think discrimination against other people is ok and/or that "tea party" politics is goos are unacceptable BSA leaders.

How long will it take? Until people who say things like "Let us hope "openly gay" doesn't involve anything icky though" are looked upon with pity. As for "liberal Christianity"? Jesus Christ was a Liberal - if you're Christianity isn't liberal, then you aren't doing it right by the guy who it's named after.