DanKroh

jhankins said "Unfortunately in our society today, "your gender is your gender" isn't as true as it used to be. Transexual issues are pervasive across the country and in every generation. It's common to see boys say "I'm a girl trapped in a boy's body" and vice versa. Gender identity is becoming a huge issue, and I think the more we polarize the gender lines, the more difficult it's going to be for kids." Transgender (transexual) issues have nothing at all do to with their environment or who their role models are. Like being gay, being transgender is something that happens in the womb (and yes, both are theories and those theories are heavily disputed by people who don't like the idea that a person can be born gay or transgender, as opposed to what science actually supports). However, on the topic at hand, I'm wondering about all this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the idea that there might be women leaders in a Boy Scout troop. Are y'all seeing a lot of Boy Scout troop with ALL female leadership, so that the boys have no male role models in scouting? Can't say I have. Most of the troops around here (LDS not withstanding) have at least one female ASM. Personally, I'd like adults associated with my children who will model how to be responsible, compassionate, independent *people*. And they can get that kind of role model from women as well as men. But we have no lack of male role models for the fact that we also have female leaders. And some of those women have better backcountry knowledge and skills than many male leaders I know.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Lisabob, Thank you for coherently stateing what I was just too gobsmacked speechless to even begin to articulate. Very well said.

"Dan, take a seep breathe, my comments were made long before the link to the newspaper was placed. I was commenting based on the available information at the time The newspaper article is not near as incendiary as I was first lead to believe" No need for a deep breath, OGE, I realize your comment was made before the article was provided. But I find the leap from "touting his orientation" to "marketing his homosexual adventures" to be just a bit jarring (and this was one of the comments I *did* find surprising).

It certainly is interesting reading the snap assumptions that people make about this young man. First, jblake says the boy is "touting his orientation". I expected an article about how he spoke at a rally concerning gay rights, sued his school to attend his prom with a same-sex date, or some such. But instead, he was interviewed while attending a dance with a friend (of unspecified gender). Perhaps the young man isn't gay at all, but transgender. BDPT is ready to label him as having "an agenda" and "play[ing] political football with my organization", not to mention disloyal, untrustworthy, and a coward. All because he attended a dance and talked to a reporter there. Wow. OGE somehow questions if the young man is "marketing his homosexual adventures". Where did *that* come from? Unfortunately OGE, gays who even take up the cause of equality are branded by some people as "flaunting their sexuality", even though many who support equality for gays are not themselves gay, so I've never quite understood that one either. Unfortunately, I can't say I'm terribly surprised by some of these responses. Terribly saddened, absolutely; but surprised, no. The young man should be congratulated, and frankly, I can't blame him if he's not interested in sticking around *if* he has gotten a similar reception from his troop.

"Are some of you suggesting the requests of one 800 lb. gorilla be honored for the sake of change, and the requests of all the other gorillas out there who still have the same high standards be overruled?" Bacchus, the problem is, no one is trying to overrule what you do in your unit. If your CO wants to have a "no gays" policy, have at it. However, COs that DO want to allow homosexuals in their units (like the UU church) are currently being dictated to in a way that is contrary to their beliefs. Let us who think that our moral standards would be raised by eliminating this discrimination do as we please in our units. BTW, Bacchus, in reviewing this thread, I noticed you never answered my questions. Is a homosexual couple who are married/in a civil union still promiscuous? Is a homosexual couple who have been in a committed relationship for 70 years without the benefit of marriage/civil union (because it is denied them, not because they don't want it) still promiscuous?

A couple of things here. First, generally speaking, requirements for Webelos awards have to be completed while they are Webelos, which means, after they have graduated to the Webelos level in June. Completing and receiving the Bear badge does not make a boy a Webelos. Second, keep in mind that some faiths have a different emblem for Webelos level scouts than for Bear scouts. For it to count for the Webelos badge, it has to be a Webelos emblem. Third, they don't have to earn the religious emblem for the Webelos badge; they can do two of the tasks outlined is 8e, instead. All that said, some of the religious emblems can take a while to complete, so it's possible that a boy could *start* an emblem as a Bear, and not *complete* it until he has graduated to Webelos. In that case, I would think it would be up to the church (since they actually award the emblem), whether they are willing let the boy do that, and up to your pack/leaders to decide if that will count toward the Webelos requirement (assuming he was working on the appropriate level award for a Webelos).

"Okay, the rest doesn't matter! "Nock the arrow with the Cock Feather" ? What the hell does that mean? What is "nock"? What is the "Cock feather"?" The nock is the plastic piece on the non-business end of the arrow with a slot in it that fits over the string. Nock is also the verb that is the act of putting the string into that slot. The front part of the arrow should sit on the "rest", some sort of shelf or plastic projection where the arrow can lay on the bow itself. There are typically 3 feathers as part of the fletching of the arrow, one feather (the cock feather) is a different color than the other two (the hen feathers). That feather needs to be away from the bow when the arrow is nocked. "Now,I realize this is usually something done at a council or district level, but by putting it in the Bear book, and in electives at that, I get the idea that this is also an "at home" activity too." Well, actually, since most people don't have a range set up in their backyard, it would usually be done at a commercial range, where there would be someone who could also give a short explanation and/or lesson to a new shooter. Of course, I doubt it mentions that anywhere in the book either. This is just another part of the BSA's inconsistent/just plain silly policy about archery. Can't earn the beltloop anywhere but a Council run event, but they are going to encourage rank novices to pick up a bow and shoot it in their backyards by putting an insufficiently explained elective in the Bear book. Lovely. The NAA certified archery instructor in me cringes.

"My cub hunts with 22 and he has a 20 gauge. but he can only shoot a spring action bb gun at camp. hmmmmm" Yeah, I have the same issue with the archery stuff. My Webelos son has shot his own recurve bow in state and national competitions since he was a Wolf, but nope, can't earn the beltloop or pin unless he shoots with the lousy equipment at Scout Camp! Sheesh.

"Regarding my "internet bullying", you can accuse all you want, but I don't consider exposing an anti-Scouting activist, who has no other association with Scouting to be bullying." First of all, you didn't "expose" anyone. Merlyn has always been quite up front about exactly who he is and what his purpose is here, all you have to do is look through his post history, and you would have known what the rest of us have known for years. I, for one, have never had a problem with him, perhaps because I respect his mission to uphold the Constitutional rights of gays and atheists, which unfortunately, the BSA seems to think it can disregard by having the protection of freedom of association without any of the responsibilities of that freedom, namely, being unable to accept governmental support. And yes, I consider this quote to be bullying: "But, my son read through this thread, and got curious about some of the posters. Google and a little investigative cleverness goes a long way, and he's found out some really surprising things. I'm not sure whether we'll post them or not." It carries an implied threat that you have dirt on someone, and that you might "out" them if the whimsy strikes you. You continued the implied threat in this post: "And, it appears you are not alone. However, the connections we've been able to make between some other forum names, and real life people, is not yet strong enough to post." in which you also mention that you have "notes" of the information you have discovered about posters on this forum. I have to agree with Lisabob's assessment, it's creepy, and more than a little disturbing. And of course, it begs the question, who are you planning on "outing", or if you prefer, "exposing" next? The next person who disagrees with you? That, sir, is the essence of bullying, to use the power that you think you have over other people to coerce them, or at least embarrass them. So what exactly is the goal *you* had in mind when you started making notes about the personal identities of various posters here?

I agree with Horizon, well said. My experience is also that the people who ignore bullying are the same people who are anti-gay. Especially when the nature of the bullying is to make fun of boys who are not "manly" enough, or the bullying includes slurs involving sexual orientation. So pro-gay folks are going to ignore the possibility of sexual abuse as well? I think not. My personal and professional experience with sexual predators makes me acutely aware of such things. And yet, I still don't have a problem with my gay friends and relatives spending time alone with my sons. Whodathunkit? Horizon, not engaging in Internet bullying must be one of those "aspiration goals", for which we are not supposed to hold people accountable.

Any place that rents ski and snowboard equipment will also rent helmets. So unless all your scouts own their own equipment, and you are going to a non-resort snow area, it shouldn't really be an issue for them to cough up another few bucks to rent a helmet. Yes, it is worth it.

Well, GHB, I do thank you for your comments. I recognize that there is distortion on this issue, and yes, it does occur on both sides. That's why I always examine experimental and interpretive methodology before taking any data at face value. I dislike few things more than scientists who let their agendas get in the way of their ethics and objectivity. "So, I'm left with trusting the data I actually know for myself, which includes things like my wannabe pedophile (now deceased) homosexual uncle, my experiences as unwilling "fresh meat" for homos to hit on in Europe in the '70's, friendship with an old homo couple years ago, current public homo 'cruising' in the parks we go to nearby, and employment (as a contractor) by a number of homosexuals, well, mostly lesbian couples. I'm not currently friends with anyone I know to be homosexual, but have both been friends and have worked with homosexuals in the past." It is extremely unfortunate that you have not been able to find a better class of gay people to experience. Not making a judgment here, but perhaps your feelings about homosexuality (and hopefully you don't call them "homos" to their faces) are exactly the reasons why you have not developed any acquaintances or friendships with the quality of gay people that I have. I have, with very few exceptions, the exact opposite experience as you. My best friend from HS came out to me in college, and I had several good friends in college who were gay and lesbian. Never got hit on (other than a joking manner), and even shared close quarters with some of them. My sons' godfathers are a gay (married) couple, as are several family members (a nephew, and a sil), all of whom have babysat for me. And that doesn't even begin to cover the friends who are bisexual, who would probably currently be viewed by the rest of the world as heterosexual, since they are in het marriages. And that also doesn't include the many, many gay and transgender clients I know professionally. They are not perfect people, and there are a percentage of them that engage in unhealthy behaviors (such as cruising), but so do many heteros I know of. So you have your emperical data, and I have mine. Given the disparity of our experiences, it's not really any wonder that we have such polarized views.

"One of the reason I would fiercely oppose homosexuals in Scouts is that I suspect that the sort of pro-homosexual dishonesty repeatedly displayed here is also characteristic of the social scientists and psychologists who are publishing pro-gay studies." As opposed to the proven dishonesty in their work and distortion of others work repeatedly displayed by discredited social scientists and psychologists (and people who have degrees in completely unrelated fields) who have turned their backs on actual science in their desperate need to prove that homosexuals are bad, dangerous, or sick people. Excuse me, sir, but I have never engaged in dishonesty either professionally or personally about homosexuality. I have no idea if your intention was to paint me with that wide brush of yours, but as a psychologist who you would consider "pro-gay", I find these ad hominem statements disingenuous.

"A heterosexual boy would NOT abuse a younger Scout sexually -- by definition. If he did so, he would be functionally homosexual." Incorrect. Sexual abuse is about power, not about sexual attraction. Those that abuse others do it irregardless of their sexual orientation (i.e., who they are sexually attracted to). "(I'm well aware that many functional homosexuals consider themselves hetero. But men or boys who have or seek sex with men or boys, they are homosexual in my definition and, I think, within the BSA's definition. And yes, I know what Kinsey said. But Kinsey has been shown to be a pedophile pervert who used his famous study to recruit sex opportunities. Oh, by the way, he was also an active Scout, FWIW.)" Except there is no such psychological term as "functional homosexual". Again, abuse and molestation is not about sexual attraction, but about having power over a weaker victim. Kinsey was himself a pedophile? Sources please. Not that I'm a big fan, and have some serious issues with some of his methods, but most of the sources I know of that accuse him of being a pedophile do so without any proof to try to discredit his work. And frankly, his work has enough flaws without resorting to ad hominem attacks.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"After 10 years of reenacting, VERY FEW reenactors are, or try to be, authentic." I've often wondered what the differences were between reenactors, and recreators. In the SCA, we consider ourselves "recreators", and in that respect, recreating authenticity, and doing the research to back it up, is highly prized among most of our group. Yes, there are always the folks who show up in wildly inappropriate outfits with wildly inappropriate accessories. They are usually divided into several categories: 1) noobs (newbies), who are usually cut some slack because they don't know any better, 2) fighters (aka "stick jocks") who are only there to hit people with sticks and don't give a rodent's behind about research or authenticity, and 3) the folks who think they are at a convention or a party, who dress up in whatever they feel like that they think will get them attention (and it's usually the *wrong* kind of attention), and can be identified as faeries, vampires, fur-bikini-clad-wench/warrior princess wannabees, Conan wannabees, pirates (out of our time period), etc. This last group doesn't usually last long, unless they are kids, again, to whom some slack is given, but only until they can be educated otherwise. That said, I've never heard the term farb before. We usually use "period" for authentic stuff and "not-period" for everything else. And the "period police" make sure you know the difference!

vol_scouter, sorry, but you lost me. I never made any comments about fuel or waste. Or reactors. My only comments have been specifically about the effects of TMI. I think from my belief that there are significant detrimental effects from the TMI accident that you have concluded I am against nuclear energy. That is an incorrect inference. I am in favor of nuclear energy; however, I think we need to be realistic about the dangers. All forms of energy production have risks, as well as benefits. However, given that nuclear power has the potential to effect thousands of square miles (or more) around the plant, I think the government still doesn't have a good enough risk management strategy. They have never, ever been able to mount a good evacuation of the population, even with advance notice (can we say, Katrina?).

"Since you think that most of the energy R&D money is from big oil, you are going to the wrong talks. That is why you have been mislead about the risks of radiation. Most energy R&D (unless including oil money looking for new oil fields) is from the federal government." Actually, I said big oil *controls* the R&D money, not that it comes from them. However, my understanding is that a lot of the folks in the government who give out that R&D money are in the pocket of big oil, or at least greatly beholden to them, according to friends who are trying to do research in the alternative energy field. And I'm not sure I quite understand what that has to do about my understanding about the risks of radiation. That, again, comes from people I know who work in that field.

GHB, thank you for both clarifying your earlier statements and for your sympathy. vol_scouter, I've also sat through several lectures on the inconsistencies of the data from the accident itself (i.e. radiation levels) and the lack of good, long-term studies of the population (as opposed to the workers) for both cancers and birth defects. "The consistent conclusions are that there is a statistically non-significant incidence in lymphomas but otherwise the age matched cohorts are healthier than the general population." Yes, well, having now lost 4 immediate family members to cancer (3 of which were lymphomas, including my brother, who was working at TMI at that time) who were within 15 miles during and after the accident, it is that statistical variance that concerns me. And again, what about birth defects? The number of defects among the children of my high school graduating class, for example, seems inordinately high. But I do agree with you that coal is not the answer. In addition to the pollution issue, large regions of PA around my childhood home have been devastated by coal strip mining. Honestly, I think if you want to get good research on energy alternatives, we need to get control of energy R&D money out of the hands of Big Oil.

"You can be that way." Excuse me, sir, but I don't believe you know me well enough to make that kind of value judgment. One of the reasons I gave the caveat of "anecdotal" is because, unlike some people, I *am* cautious of presenting my personal opinions as hard facts. But I do have some personal commentary on your sources (I deleted the quoted text for brevity). The first comment on all of them is that I can only see the abstracts, not the full articles, so I cannot judge for myself the validity of the conclusions based on the data, or the validity of the methods. But there are a few other things worth noting: [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2389745 ] A study done in 1990, when doctors agree that many cancers take *at least* 10-15 years after exposure to manifest. Not exactly a "long-term" study. And what does "does not provide convincing evidence" mean exactly? So does that mean there is "unconvincing evidence"? [ http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/113/2/214 ] The abstract, which you quote here, says that the background radon could make it difficult to link cancer increases to TMI, not that there is no increase. Without looking at the rest of the article, I can't tell if they actually examine lung cancer incidence. [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18300710 ] This looked just at thyroid cancer, and says that there was in increase in incidence, but no causal link to TMI. Causality is very hard to establish, even with overwhelming evidence. Still, doesn't address other cancers, like non-hodgkins lymphoma. Here's one that actually supports your conclusions, though the effect reported is weak: [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9074881 ] But another study examining mortality from 1979 to 1992 found nothing: [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10856029 ] This examined mortality, not incidence. Cancer treatments have come a long way. I would be more impressed if this study looked at *incidence*. Also, it only covers a 12 year period (see above about some cancers taking *at least* 10-15 years), so it's still not what I would call "long-term". I'm curious, was the "continued follow-up of these individuals" ever conducted? ". . . and so on. The consensus is that either TMI had NO effect, or else a very small one." Actually, the studies that say "no effect", seem to really say "there are small but statistically significant effects, but they cannot be causally linked to TMI", which is not exactly the same thing. Also, you don't present any studies here looking at birth defects, only cancers. Having had 2 children with (minor and not so minor) birth defects (the wife was within the affected area during her childhood, as well), I would be interested to see data on that. The Kodak thing is interesting, but again, it is taken from a blog, and I would like to see an original report, although I suspect my physics is not strong enough to make a good interpretation either way.

"Of course, this does not address the 'locked in your classroom' issue. But isn't that a problem caused by panic and inappropriate response, rather than by nuclear power per se?" GHB, thanks for the pop pseudo-psychology, but you are missing my point. Those who watched TMI from a safe distance can talk about how irrational the fear of nuclear power is, but for those of us who lived through it, we have reasons to distrust nuclear power, and even more reason to distrust those who regulate and run the power plants. Yes, the power of suggestion can have dramatic effects. But I'm not quite sure how suggestion produces increased numbers of deformed livestock and plants. Again, my point, which you have completely missed, is that there is no hard, uncontested evidence supporting vol_scouter's claims. I am not "anti-nuke", however, I do think a lot more safety features and plans need to be in place if we, as a nation, are going to utilize nuclear power. Like any sort of realistic evacuation plan for the population, another thing which did not exist for the Harrisburg area in 1979.

"The amount of radiation released at the Three Mile Island site was small and there have been no significant effects." vol_scouter, I disagree. There are conflicting accounts of how much radiation was released, and there have been no studies done, that I know of, to show an absence of long-term effects. On the other hand, I have anecdotal information from various relatives about increased cancer and birth defects among both the human and livestock populations, as well as pictures of interesting mutations of plant-life in the area. I spent a day locked in a school 12 miles from TMI in 1979, and most of a week in exile from my home, wondering if we would ever be able to return. Some of us don't need the media to scare us about nuclear power. Experience has done a good enough job. That said, I am not anti-nuclear, but I am concerned about regulations regarding the building and operation of power plants.

Ok, I gotta ask because in 4 years in the biology department and a S.B. later, I never heard of "naturalistic" vs. "mutational" evolution. What, exactly, is the difference?

I'm also in a MA council (Nashua Valley) whose summer camp is just over the border in NH, Camp Wanocksett. Wanocksett has a great program, and the weeks that I have been there, there are usually a couple of troops from outside our Council, which I think is a good indicator of the quality of their program. They run 6 or 7 weeks at full capacity every week, and they are expanding with new campsites to increase that capacity. I have also heard good things about Camp Resolute in Bolton (part of Knox Trail Council).

Sherminator asked "Funny. I was just reading a story on another thread about a female Scouter who was caught doing the same thing. Was she gay?" No, but evidently using the logic of folks like maurergj, her behavior is a good enough reason to exclude all heterosexual female scout leaders. When will we be going back to that model, exactly? After all, that worked out so well for the BSA in the '80s, right? Here's just a small part of my problem with the whole, "we'll let in gay scouts but not gay leaders". What do you do when that young man turns 18 and wants to stay on with his troop as an ASM, and being gay is the only criteria under which you would deny him a leadership position? What exactly about his character changed from the day before, when he was 18 years old, that he is now not fit to be a member of the BSA as a legal adult? And what does it say to the child of gay parents (yes, we do have such things here in MA, and the parents are even married, so you can't use that excuse, either) that *he* can be a member of the BSA, but neither of his fathers/mothers can be, just because they are gay? Think about that even more if the young man in question is himself gay (at the risk of invoking the whole gay parents = gay kids nonsense). Personally, I find the whole gay youth/gay adult artificial distinction even more problematic than excluding all homosexuals.

"Modern Wicca apparently is a 'big tent' that now includes some practitioners of black magic (whether the common wanna-bes or the rare real deal), as well as a 'stoner' (Nature? Wow, co-o-ol, dude!) or 'new age-y' anti-intellectual pursuit of the spiritual as 'whatever makes me feel good'. Within this category, "Nature" is sometimes 'worshiped', but just what "Nature" is, is always undefined. What it is not, is the complete collection of quantum scale particles and large-scale masses and processes that are the working materials of science." Um, No. Paganism is a "big tent". Wicca refers specifically to a initiatory tradition which does NOT include "black magic", stoners, or newage (it rhymes with "sewage"). You can't be a Wiccan unless you've been initiated into Wicca, despite what a whole bunch of wannabees who have read a book about Wicca may think.