fella

Yes, let the boys wear them. It's nice custom for boys to pierce their ears.

If boys and their parents are happy with wearing earrings, then they should be allowed.

I don't think it achieves much to speak disparagingly ("drivel") about the founder of the scouting movement.

Only people with some kind of radical social agenda would presumably have some interest in doing that.

I agree that personal appearance is important when meeting the public, particularly. I don't object to uniforms, either for scouting or in some jobs.

kwc57

"There have been many threads concerning things like odd colored hair and haircuts and earrings. Many of the leaders say, "not in MY troop"! It is not THEIR troop, it is the BOYS troop and as long as official BSA policy is not being broken, the boys can wear their hair or piercings regardless of whether the adults approve or not."

Yes. I agree

So: VP Cheney is being paid 1 million dollars a year by Halliburton, which is seeking oil concessions in a 'liberated' Iraq.

Meanwhile, the US won't pay to clear up the war damage all its smart bombs will cause.

pfann:

Oh? "religious award"? "religious"? The topic of multi-billion arms deals and Capitol Hill lobbying are about my personal theology? I'll be glad to oblige if you want me to talk about my personal theology. (Since you ask, the Epistle to the Hebrews is a good place to start.)

But to return to the topic, why in the guise of 'religion' is all the multi-billion arms deals and Capitol Hill lobbying excused? I wish people would define what they mean before going sentimental about politicians, spies, etc.

Q.: When is a Zionist not a Zionist? A.: When s/he is an American citizen working as a Capitol Hill lobbyist.

Q.: When is an American citizen a Zionist? A.: When he's called Jonathan Pollard, jailed in the US for spying for Israel.

Q.: When is Zionism not Zionism? A.: When it's Israeli diplomacy

O.: When is Israeli diplomacy Zionism? A.: When they're lobbying for the release of Jonathan Pollard.

The fact that the Iowa caucus is only 10 months away may have something to do with the war-talk.

kwc57

"We refuse to take part in UN forces unless WE get to command them. We do not want to be under the control and power of any other nation or be beholden to them. And rightly so!"

The UN is supposed to be an organization of sovereign states which have agreed to act lawfully with one another.

If what you've said were applied to the UN, there wouldn't be any peace-keeping forces anywhere, since no-one would agree to joining them.

I think this idea that the US is wanting to engage in preventative genocide on the UN's behalf is a no-no: Bush 2 has already said that if the UN doesn't approve of his war then he'll go in anyhow. (Yes, killing thousands of civilians on the ground, while CNN-viewing voters in Main Street can't stomach any body bags at Dover Delaware AFB, is what I call genocide, even if the military industrial mega-corporations just regard it as 'collateral damage', a term maybe worse than 'genocide' because it is used so obscenely and dishonestly.)

Strengths of the UN are that it's an international arena where breaches of international law can be recorded for public scrutiny and that it's a wonderful talking shop for group therapy where angry people can gradually cool it with empathy.

Mr. Rumsfeld and his corporation cronies might not think so, but jaw-jaw IS better than war-war.

To paraphrase Voltaire, if Saddam did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

Otherwise, it would be more difficult to justify the bloated US defense budget, with that military-industrial mega-corporations that feed off military 'free trade'.

I think that the whole debate has become one-sided, at least in the US.

In Europe, various of the governments have had the guts to stand up to George W. Bush. Even in Britain, where Tony Blair behaves like George W. Bush's poodle, nearly 200 members of Parliament vote against war: hardly a sign that the people have been convinced.

Since "a week or two ago" (as you say), an idea about Scouters in my area arose and I wanted to express it. If you don't agree with what I said (though in the past I've hardly been the only one to say something similar), that's fine.

Huh?

Just to record that in my area there is certainly no prohibition on scouter boys piercing their ears.

On these boards some say they don't like it on boys. Well, be that as it may, in my area scout leaders certainly don't stop it.

dan:

Actually, in 1990, Bin Laden wanted to fight against Saddam, but was persuaded instead... to go fight in Afghanistan. The US encouaged the Islamic fundamentalists to fight in Afghanistan.

"Was the Taliban not part of Saddam army?" Not to my knowledge. Saddam is far too secular and pro-Western (it's all comparative) for Bin Laden's liking.

"Are you willing to sit back and wait for another attack?" From Saddam? That's unlikely, unless the US invades Iraq. From Bin Laden? That's the price of years of US encouragement of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan.

On the principle of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend', the US was glad to encourage Islamicists to train and arm (when Afghanistan happened to have a pro-Soviet government).

However, a war in Iraq would depict the bad guys as being all Arabs, while the genocidal Sharon fails to implement UN resolutions about Israel (the war against Saddam supposedly being about his non-compliance with UN resolutions).

Small wonder that US foreign policy is seen as lacking in even-handedness.

"September 11th changed everything."

That's what the military-industrial-energy complex and the Zionist lobby would like people to believe. They've got so many vested interests in a military build up and in keeping CNN attention away from the backyards of the US's clients.

No evidence has emerged that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Yesterday Ari Fleischer at the White House seemed to be admitting the authenticity of tape of Bin Laden which called Saddam an 'infidel'. So much for the supposed Saddam-Al Qaida linkage.

"Let's go out there and maim and kill all those nasty foreigners: never mind who did 9/11" just isn't a worthy foreign policy.

Admittedly 9/11 greatly wounded US pride. Americans are angry and want to keep hitting people.

I'm inherently suspicious of Administrations that campaign in the first election to disengage from the rest of the world for the first term and then, when elected, get more bellicose as the Iowa caucus (only 11 months away now!) approaches.

OldGreyEagle:

Sorry to hear of your 17-year old son's health difficulties and surgical needs. Any other issue like the stud you allowed in his ear is of course vastly less important. As you say: "a pin hole in his ear was probably fairly minor". While not having known about your son's difficulties (for which I wish him the best recovery) your general point is kind of what I've been saying.

Dan: Hey, I'm not the only who thinks that way! OldGreyEagle wanted one for himself as well as allowing one for his son.

I've been reading these columns and have been bewlidered by some of the ideas being expressed. OldGreyEagle said way back (he might not actually agree with this idea):

"Adults get permission to make mistakes but the hole in the ear thing is a character flaw?"

What a strange idea! I think that safety and precuations are very important but a hole pierced in a boy's ear ought to be, and is, no big deal.

A while back evmori said:

"RE: A better question

[...]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...] Just because body piercing is NOW popular doesn't make it moral.

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1"

Oh. As a matter of fact, it's been suggested in 'Christianity Today' that some piercings like a third earring or a navel ring can be a good compromise alternative to some of the more questionable ones:

"[...] [T]ry to approach your child's desire to pierce in a rational way. [...] It takes a long time for the body to heal from a piercing. Ears usually take 4 to 6 weeks, but other piercings like those in the navel can take up to an entire year. [...]Compromise If you can't stand the thought of your child with a tongue bar, come up with a solution you can both agree on. Maybe you'd be more apt to accept a third earring or even a navel ring."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/cpt/2001/001/12.24.html

I think, eg., a earring for a boy, ought not to be too controversial

Colomike: "...piercings ok, piercings forbidden, [...]tattoos...well you get it, and so on."

I do think that people ought to cool it a bit. If a boy's earring is a real hazard in some activities, then he should remove for the duration, sure. But otherwise it's no big deal, I think. Let him go for it if it doesn't do him any harm.

As far as I'm concerned a little, unobtrusive ear-stud is no big deal for a girl or boy. So many have it.

Actually I would be the first to argue that earrings (especially the bigger ones) should be removed if hazardous to the activity in question.

But let's face it, it's not unknown for girl guides to wear sleeper studs in uniform.

I don't see the differnce for boys if they happen to have had their ears pierced as well.

Why discuss it? Well, it's kind of topical as an issue, live on other Scouter thread as well.

NJCubScouter"

"Personally, I don't like guys wearing earrings. But if a Scout wants to wear one, then that's his right."

Quite so.

Actually, you may find you'll get used to them one day!

Lots of boys get ear piercings. It doesn't do them any harm.

Eamonn: "OJ, my son really wants to have his ear/ears done."

It's your call. But so many boys do it that many people would hardly regard it as a big deal if he had it done.