Callooh! Callay!1428010939

"Da details of background and security checks are quite properly not public. They're not public because they're not other people's business, and they're not public because makin' 'em public would compromise national security by allowin' foreign powers to exploit weaknesses in the person or in da background check process." That's only partly correct and only about the detail that it's the DETAILS that must be protected as private. But whether or not the person has submitted to an investigation and provided OPM with a completed security questionnaire is no secret. And the details are kept within very specific channels so as to protect the person's right to privacy, not as you claim, because "because makin' 'em public would compromise national security by allowin' foreign powers to exploit weaknesses in the person or in da background check process." If weakness of that sort come to light, the person is NOT granted a clearance - that's a main purpose of the background check - the vast majority of clearances denied are denied because of such weaknesses - NOT because there is suspicion that the person is a "foreign agent." "So demanding that someone's security clearance investigation be revealed so as to "prove" that she isn't a foreign operative is just about as un-American as yeh can get on any number of levels." Not so fast. The folks who do the investigations and grant the clearances are not un-American folks. Beyond their dealing with the very personal details of such investigations, there is a substantial informational and human infrastructure set up specifically to track and verify the results of security clearance investigations. Every time someone enters an area where certain levels of classified information are used, they present credentials that prove that they have been investigated and found to be worthy of more than just ordinary trust. The system doesn't just exclude "foreign operatives" from access, it excludes everyone who can't prove they've been investigated and been granted clearance. If McCain were more interested in settling this matter than in moral exhibitionism - he'd cut to the chase and say "look, OPM investigated her thoroughly and she's been granted a clearance".... BUT that still would not mean that some body of elected federal officials should not have access to more details than are public - or are we against having our elected civilian officials exercise bipartisan oversight over matters of national security?

"Callooh! Callay!, please explain what the cliche' is" The cliche is "McCarthyism." Cliches can transmit meaning (see example in next senence). But "McCarthyism" steals too many bases. It's transparently calculated to condemn what it labels and to do an end run around having to think about any point the condemned might have. It suggests that the condemned's point is unworthy of consideration, so if one does consider it.... well, that one might be a McCarthyite too! And we're all deathly afraid of being called naughty things like "McCarthyite."(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

BHO a Muslim? Not likely. We shouldn't even assume Huma Abedin is a Muslim in the sense of actually taking canonical Islam seriously. Just because her name, Abedin, comes from the Arabic عبد الين (meaning "Slave of The Religion" - Islam, that is) and just because she claims to be a Muslim and is intelligent and charming, doesn't make her "interpretation" of Islam authoritative or even reasonable. So, no... not only is BHO not a Muslim, it would be surprising to learn that Huma Abedin takes canonical Islam very seriously. It seems likely that the Islam she professes is an "interpretation" that suits her preferences. But the issue isn't her name or her religion. The issue is whether or not she's been cleared as meeting the standard criteria via a background investigation for access to classified. Foreign associations, particularly close familial ones (even if the relative is deceased), must be investigated - and that's not crackpots clamoring to demonize anyone who is different; that's the law and the system governing such access. Being a Muslim doesn't make one exempt from the requirements any more than being a Frisbeetarian would. Some people with foreign relatives do get clearances. But that's after their foreign associations are investigated and deemed benign. Were Abedin's? Did she have her background run through the OPM gauntlet that EVERYONE else does or does she get a pass because she's Hillary's friend or because we want to grandstand as standing up to the Islamophobia of requiring Muslims to meet the same criteria as non-Muslims prior to granting them access to classified information?

The "McCarthyism" charges give us a glimpse into minds that perceive vast spectra of phenomena through the lens of a clich. AFAIK, Abedin has access to information classified top secret and she is widely known to have ties that might disqualify an ordinary US citizen from such access, not because they are criminal ties (this is not about charging someone with a crime) but because they are standard things OPM takes into account in security clearance investigations. Not just any US citizen is granted such access. The current POTUS might not qualify for access were he not an elected official. OPM would scrutinize his foreign associations and his background and, without accusing him of any crime, could deny him a security clearance. For obvious reasons, he does have clearance. The reasons are not so obvious for Abedin; she is not an elected official. So one might wonder... with her questionable (and they ARE questionable from the standpoint of granting a security clearance) is she exempted from the normal standards OPM uses in security clearance investigations because she is a friend of the Secretary of State? If those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it, are those who do "study" it doomed to see what they think happened repeating itself always?(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Why not bivvy bags? But if it must be tents: Poles: Aluminum bends, but bends back too. Fiberglass is OK but splinters eventually. Aluminum wins. Design: Avoid anything in which you must slide long poles through sleeves - it's too fiddly. A good design is with poles external (except maybe to the rainfly) with hook or tie on system to hold the tent to the poles is best and repairs easier when it breaks. Don't go for complex designs and gimmicks - KISS. Size: In general, a smaller tent will stand up better in the wind. In general, smaller tents set up easier and quicker. Whatever the "X" in X-man tent, plan on housing only 1/2 X in the tent as a matter of routine... for example, the typical 4-man tent is about the right size for two men (and gear they'll want with them). Patrol method... for sleeping? That's what the tent is for. Patrol method would work just fine with the patrol in their patrol area sleeping in their individual bivvy bags or two-man tents. If the patrol needs a common area with protection from rain/insects, a dining fly type arrangement (separated from where they sleep) is good. Maintenance: Think about ease of repair and availability of replacement parts. Weather: It might make a difference in your selection. Ownership: There are pros and cons to troop or personal gear. Personal is preferable IMO. For tents - best IMO is small, aluminum frame (if required), simple with 2 PPT standard and room for 3 if there's an odd number. Anyone consider bivvy bags instead? But upon seeing this posted I see that I have failed to address the original question - to which the answer is yes - and it's fraught with the slumber-party atmosphere. Tents are for sleeping IMO.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Hmmm.... Board of Review A "board" that..... "reviews." "Board of Review," not "Crucible of Confrontation." "Board of Review" sounds cordial, non-confrontational, maybe interesting. What's being reviewed is being reviewed... it has already been accomplished. So maybe the review is a chance to discuss how the accomplishments play into the bigger picture... talk about what worked well, what didn't... maybe check whatever organizational vital signs can be checked via this review... maybe talk about how lessons learned might play into what's next in the near and long term future. Wanna practice for it? OK. It won't hurt anything. But none of this sounds like it requires a "mock" session to practice. If the scout is nervous about the first one, that one ought to cure him of it. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!) for poor punctuation - which might still be faulty - somewhere.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Uh.... never mind.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Some know who Chuck is... one told me this one: Why are there so many Chuck Norris jokes but none about Bruce Lee? Because Bruce Lee is no joke. of course... that wasn't a Cub Scout(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"....outcome of any attempt on your part to stop your troop from participating will be that everybody else views you as a bit of a stick in the mud." "a stick in the mud?" One notices a stick in the mud because it's not like the stuff around it... the mud. Do sticks in mud throw pearls before swine? "Your boys might obey, but they'll also probably resent it." Well, this may sound boastful, but I reckon I could summon the strength to live under the crushing burden of this resentment. If one could continue to live happily under the shadow of this dreaded resentment, the example of cheerful perseverance might inspire boys to also reclaim the wreckage of their broken dreams of making cacophonous nuisances of themselves at dinner and redirect that drive to some other goal (hopefully not vengeance - you spose I should watch my back?). But, as it happened. It wasn't me that first made a public issue of this matter. It was a boy, more than one actually, but one was/is particularly vociferous in his objections to the practice. I advised him more or less thusly: "yes, you're right, but you should forgive your fellow campers their noisy uncouthness, for they know not what they do.... well, OK, you're right, actually they know exactly what they're doing, but they've been given this bogus "it's scout spirit" excuse, and it's tradition, and they've got adults egging them on, and....whatever man, just forgive them anyway on general principle... it's healthy for you and kind to them.... and, by the way, you can't stop their behavior anyway.... so, just let it go." But does he listen to me? Oh no. Of course not. He's too much like me to listen to me. He takes the issue to the camp SPL meeting when he's standing in as acting SPL. And he tells all the older, senior, real SPLs that their troops need to exercise more courtesy at meals and they need to quit the pounding and yelling . I wish I'd been there to see it. A camp staffer who was present gave me an eyewitness account; apparently the boy handled himself with aplomb and was unfazed when his complaints were rebuffed (as he must have known they would be)..... and it gets better (or worse, depending on your perspective) - he had already made the same complaint last time he was at camp and got the same results - and this time he wasn't even taking every meal in the dining hall... only lunch; because prior to camp he had already successfully politicked a small clique of fellow kulaks and capitalist roaders to join him in cooking and eating breakfast and dinner at the campsite at their leisure. So here, I'm just following his lead and bringing the issue up for Scouters to consider as he did for Scouts. But hey.... in the chow hall... you do what you think is right and you reign in boys in your troop when you think appropriate.... I'm just asking you to consider what I've said and overlook any barbs with which I may have adorned the saying of it. I'm not arguing for an atmosphere in which grumpy Scouters with acid dripping from their pit-bull growling tones tear into boys for having their hats on indoors (yea, I've seen that - it's odd because common sense tells me that that's a point of etiquette we could suspend in light of boys having hands full of trays and no place to put their hats anyway). We don't need drill sergeants standing around to enforce silence... but it sure would be nice to have a little decorum at mealtime and to save the most raucous cheers for other settings. AND NO POUNDING TABLES! - that means YOU, Mr. "We Will Rock You!" Now get down and give me 20 pushups while singing "I'm a Little Teapot" and sing like you mean it.... make us all believe that you really are a little teapot! Move it!

D-rat. You point out some worthwhile things to consider. Still, at o-dark-thirty, there they are... not all, but many... out to earn troop activity competition points for their participation in the mile run.... and it's strangely quiet. Absent is the atmosphere of excitement that surrounds meal time. Many boys who will, in the dining hall later that day, be shouting "this is table number one, number one" at the top of their lungs, find those same lungs to be rather delicate and lacking in capacity early in the morning. No one is running around with a spirited group yelling "We are runners number one, number one!" or anything like that. If you run with them, you must navigate around and through gaggles of very slow runners and even walkers who block the entire track and apparently can't hear admonitions about track etiquette "Walkers and slow guys keep right please! Inside lanes for runners please! Thankyou!" They seem to have a lot of trouble hearing and processing that. Do you suppose it could be hearing damage from dining hall spirit noises? Honestly, sometimes these scouts act just like a bunch of kids.

"are you trolling us, and getting a big belly laugh from this thread?" Well, maybe a little. It is funny to get advice that essentially says: "Hey man, lighten up, it's not that big a deal... but you should leave scouting over it." Also funny are expressions of delight at seeing scouts "be themselves" by doing the same silly thing everyone else is doing. But, as incongruous as it may seem juxtaposed to the deadly seriousness of Callooh! Callay! comments on this forum, the man who animates the character is not above singing the Greasy Grimy Gopher Guts song to the tune of the 4th movement of Beathoven's 9th symphony, any other doggerel classic to the tune of Figaro's Aria from Rossini's Barber of Seville, or maybe even the My Little Pony theme song adapted to Godsmack's Straight Out of Line. Just NOT at the dinner table. Table pounding is the wrong "spirit" for dinner and the doggerel really needs improvement. The "We've got spirit" song challenge.... ugh. Lame, yet noisy. "Perhaps there is a camp for young folks that encourages evening dress at dinner, white gloves, and "elevated conversation"." Dude! That would rock! Well, all except for the evening dress, white gloves, and "elevated converstion" parts... we could do without those. But imagine if, instead of the standard table pounding chant "We've got spirit,"..... imagine that same doggerel adapted to an arrangement like "The Excstacy of Gold" from Ennio Morricone's awesome soundtrack for The Good The Bad And The Ugly (in the scene immediately prior to the dnouement, the music and vocals of this piece rise up as Tuco is overcome with joy, realizing he has stumbled into the Sand Hill Cemetery; it continues soaringly as he rushes about madly searching for the grave marked "Arch Stanton"). In any camp there's bound to be a scout that could pull off adapting "We've Got Spirit" to the hauntingly beautiful soprano solo that Edda Del'Orso does in the original (it kicks in at about 46 seconds in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-rHdSWZLpQ&feature=related (extra slice of cobbler if they can hit the note Edda does at 1:46 - two extra slices if they look like Tuco in this clip:

Speaking of singing in the camp dining hall... Why must what might otherwise be a pleasant meal, be an occasion for raucous, repetitive, cliched singsong doggerel? "This is table number one...." "We've got spirit... yes we do..." "Fried chicken, fried chicken fried chicken..... oooh yea! Fried Chicken!" And even table pounding sometimes... I'm told they're "showing spirit." But there are different kinds of spirit. And in the spirit of discussing spirit... we might ask SPLs and PLs.... Is that spirit (described above) the one that should dominate mealtime? And flag ceremony assemblies? This behavior occurs "naturally" in boys of course. But taking a dump is also natural; yet there is a wide range of time/place settings where doing so is considered inappropriate. A scout is natural? And therefore disturbs the peace with shows of "spirit" whenever the impulse (or boredom) arises? Or a scout is courteous? And kindly refrains from disturbing the peace at mealtime?

"I reckon "struggle session" is just a few parsecs over the top" Ok, maybe just a few. Parsecs. Perhaps a might have provided a clue to the employment of just a tiny bit of hyperbole. But emoticons are so emotional.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"Struggle Session" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Agreed. And the comments are interesting and thoughtful.

Well those are some good common-sense answers. It appears the omnipotence paradox has no legs here. but let's get this H. Dumpty candidate vetted before we rally round. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Hey. I just got singled out in the post above. I'm being bullied. Sometimes someone singles themselves out with behavior that crosses a line of propriety, legality, or decorum. And sometimes the appropriate acknowledgment of their self advertised singularity is to remind them that, yes, there is an imbalance of power and the the power would like them to knock off whatever shenanigans they used to single themselves out in the first place. So, pushups aside (I don't think they should be associated with punishment) - you notice a boy REALLY bullying another boy in a very serious way: Unless we expand your definition of bullying, you'd be bullying unless in stopping the behavior you employed only passive behavior that does not involve an imbalance of power. That might even work sometimes. But the Jedi mind trick has its limitations(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Thoughts of rule interpretation in the thread from which this is spun bring to mind the following question: If BSA hired someone of supreme competence in language and logic to write advancement requirements and rules, would he be able to write those requirements so as to express the original intent with such specificity and clarity that even he couldn't later "interpret" them as meaning something not originally intended?

To participate in an election is it necessary to run for office or does simply casting your vote count as participation? Forming up and standing for the express purpose of honoring the colors is participation in a flag ceremony. Anyway, this thread is about: Wolf requirement 2f: Participate in an outdoor flag ceremony I'm a fan of having them do the whole color guard bit, but if you count participation as um... participation, it's not like they're going to miss out on all other flag related knowledge and skills - just look at the rest of Wolf requirement 2: a. Give the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Tell what it means. b. Lead a flag ceremony in your den. Here are some ideas: (Ideas shown in book) c. Tell how to respect and take care of the U.S. flag. Show three ways to display the flag. d. Learn about the flag of your state or territory and how to display it. e. Learn how to raise a U.S. flag properly for an outdoor ceremony f. Participate in an outdoor flag ceremony. g. With the help of another person, fold the U.S. flag.

"that story is 3 years old. Any followup?" "Following the backlash, Balzano resigned as head of the local chapter. SEIU members from Allentown, Philadelphia and New Jersey joined the Boy Scouts to help with the project and to make an apology. Wayne MacManiman, SEIU district leader stated "Kevin's doing an amazing thing.We've always supported the Boy Scouts, whether it's here in Allentown, Bethlehem or Philadelphia."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_International_Union

And there are these opinions: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=69236

Participating is participating. Isn't it? The boys who stand and salute are participating in the ceremony as much as are the boys who have the honor of handling the colors. If you have time and access to a flag pole (or are handy to lash one up quick) a practice ceremony can be fun for Cub Scouts. A smaller flag is a good choice for little hands attached to short arms. It's a low pressure way to introduce them to handling the colors. With a small group it can be a fun activity that all boys can have a role in, yet still be imbued with the proper sense of seriousness and decorum. With a big group... maybe not. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

This project briefly received media attention that reached nationwide: Union Bullies Boy Scout for Dastardly Good Deed http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Union-Bullies-Boy-Scout-for-Dastardly-Good-Deed-70285552.html

Hazing schmazing. Pushups are good. Why associate them with punishment?

"I wonder if this was spurred by an actual situation, or if you're just stirring the pot with an extreme hypothetical." It was spurred by an actual situation; complaints in this forum about rich kids along the lines of and in most cases worded similarly to the collected composite of them in the OP. As for stirring the pot... it's standard procedure for cooking sacred cows. But the OP was intended not to stir a pot, but rather to throw cold water on the old stereotype about the spoiled undeserving rich versus the virtuous and deserving poor. In your examples, you say the rich kid may need "an attitude adjustment" while the poor kid needs "a genuine opportunity from someone willing to guide without judging." But mightn't the rich kid need "a genuine opportunity from someone willing to guide without judging" him to be in need of "an attitude adjustment?" And might not the poor kid miss out on a needed "attitude adjustment" if the person "willing to guide him" does so "without judging?" (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)