Kahuna

Merlyn, I said at the outset of this ill-fated discussion that the reason no one cites examples to you is that you refuse to see them as what they are. With all respect, I don't see any purpose in continuing this discussion. You have your viewpoint and I have mine. BTW, it's Kahuna, not Kahoona. It has a religious connotation, though, so feel free to spell it anyway you want.

Aloha, Prairie Scouter, You probably could get a better answer from Miki, but I can partially answer your question. The BSA began diverging almost at once from B-P's methods. That's what happens when you hire a lawyer to be the first Chief Scout Executive. West's idea of how to expand scouting around the country involved a lot of professional help. Of course, the U.S. is a much larger geographic entity and that had something to do with it, too. Looking at B-P Scouts website, it looks to be more an alternative for those who disagree with the British Scouts than the BSA. I think most Americans would have trouble with the "duty to the Queen." I can't tell if they are less discriminatory than BSA or not (I do see they allow mixed sex or single sex groups). Certainly B-P thought a belief in God was essential and have no idea what he thought about gays (although I don't imagine he would have considered them good leaders given the thinking of his time), but the BSA did not try to make itself different, it just evolved in a different way than British Scouting. In any organization, once you hire people to run it their primary job becomes to keep their job. I think that is one of the major reasons it played out so differently over here.

Aloha Gentlemen, I don't want to debate the legal issues. I stated my case earlier and on other threads. You either agree with me or not. There is a philosophical and practical question at issue. Would the United States be better off without the BSA or not? The BSA is not a perfect organization. I don't agree with all of its policies and would change some of them if I could. The BSA is in a bind. By changing its moral code (which is what these issues come down to), it would lose a certain percentage of its membership. By admitting acknowledged gays, they lose the LDS church and some others as well. Hard decisions. Merlin apparently believes that allowing communities to support the BSA will lead to the return to racism and religious discrimination in government. It won't. The reason is that public would not support it. The public overwhelmingly supports the BSA as far as I can tell. That's because for nearly 100 years the BSA has built character and turned boys into good citizens, using the present methods. I do recognize discrimination against atheists without it being pointed out to me, thank you. But it is not unique to the BSA and the BSA has a cogent reason at least for it. I just don't think it will result in the breakdown of society. I do think that chipping away at the Constitution in the name of political correctness will result in an entirely different country than we have today. Driving the BSA out of business will speed up the process.

Gern, All of the ACLU cases are about civil liberties. Of course, they are pro-civil liberties, but according to their lights. While I agree that protecting the civil liberties of minority groups is important (since by and large majority groups can protect their own through elections), it is a fact (with which you will probably not agree) that the ACLU takes any kind of extreme civil liberty case they can find in hopes of poking another hole in the Constitution. They go from state to state, federal district to federal district, until they find a court that will give them what they want. In some cases, the do the right thing for the right reason, but normally, it simply results in harm to the majority while not significantly improving any group. The Boy Scout cases pushed by the ACLU are a case in point. They have succeeded in imposing a point of view that most Americans do not agree with, that public institutions cannot support private institutions that discriminate for religious reasons, and to what advantage? Are atheists better off as a result? ACLU threats (not that organization alone) have resulted in some United Ways cutting BSA funding. Are gays better off as a result? Is anybody better off? The answer to the latter is yes, those who support the ACLU's agenda of destroying our culture through court actions are better off. Everyone else is either worse off or no better off. So, no, I can't think of a case where the ACLU has opposed civil liberties per se, they just oppose the United States and what it stands for.

Merlyn, no one will post examples for you because you would just argue that they don't constitute an anti-American agenda. I would probably argue the same if I were you, given your stance on scouting. The best examples I could possibly give of the ACLU's culture war would be the line of cases against the BSA, notoriously the Balboa Park (San Diego) Scout Base case. You, of course, will not agree that those cases constitute actions that are detrimental to our culture. I happen to believe that the way to change the Constitution is through legislative, not judicial, action. ACLU keeps poking around until they find a liberal judge who will make law based on "feelings." That is not how laws are supposed to be made. So, what would be the point of citing examples? As I said earlier, anyone who studies the ACLU's legal actions can see what their agenda is. You just happen to think it's a good agenda. Most Americans don't. Having said that, I find I have nothing more to say on that subject.

Come on, Prairie_Scouter, you know the ACLU is trying to change the Constitution by the least desirable means: the courts. It is, in fact, the only way that really liberal ideas ever find their way into law, because they almost never get enacted legislatively. Now, are they the only ones? No, not at all. The right wing groups want to do exactly the same thing, the only difference is the agenda. I don't happen to like either side's agenda and wouldn't support any of them. However, I particularly don't like the ACLU agenda. I agree with Greying Beaver and you that the ACLU does some good things. I have said before that the Nazis did a lot of good things in Germany in the 1930's. One just has to weigh out if it's worth the evil they cause. I recently received a second invitation to join ACLU and used their SASE to reply in somewhat the above vein.

If you ever visited the old office in North Brunswick, you'd know the answer. It was in a heavy traffic, industrialized area in a corner of the country where real estate is expensive and quality of life questionable in terms of commuting and such. All the National people lived over in Basking Ridge, which was pretty nice, but property values there would have been pretty outrageous, I imagine. Being in Dallas, off the freeway, near a major airport, in the middle of the country, with plenty of real estate available in the 'burbs probably looked really good to them.

I've never been on a Sea Base expedition, but one thing I would suggest that would be fun in addition to good preparation is taking the US Sail/ARC sailing course. They teach kids and adults sailing techniques with hands on experience in small sailboats. Sailors will tell you that if you can sail a Sunfish or a Phantom, you can sail anything.

I'm not sure I understand why adults wish to wear the medals they are authorized to wear. I don't even wear all the square knots to which I'm entitled. I do wear the ones I think carry the most weight in doing my job. I also wear my Eagle medal if I am actually presenting an Eagle. I wear my Silver Beaver if I go to a Silver Beaver ceremony, but then I usually wear the blue blazer instead of whites. I was in the Air Force for 30 years and only wore my (miniature) medals about five times. We had to wear our ribbons on our dress blue blouse, but I didn't have to wear that much either. But to answer Kaji's original question: I would much prefer to have the original medal rather than a replacement. The original has history, even if it's a little worse for wear.

That's interesting stuff. I never saw those Russian Scouting pics before. I do remember that B-P visited Russia and met the Tsar. I suppose they had some kind of review for him, but never saw any pics of that. Back in the 1980's, I worked with a man who was born in Harbin, China, in the 1920's. His parents were White Russian emigres. He never was a Scout, though. Thanks for that link.

Well, the Scouts in Hong Kong or Taiwan would be your best bet there. Scouting was banned immediately in all Communist countries, just as it was in Nazi Germany. In Communist states, it was replaced by the young communist movements. Membership is generally mandatory. I know they still have them in Cuba and the PRC. In Nazi Germany, it was the Hitler Youth. It's not because it's based on English traditions, it's because it encourages ideas that are not convenient to the state, one being God. The Young Pioneers and the Hitler Youth were based directly on Scouting, but replaced God with the state. Needless to say, Communist or Nazi indoctrination replaced traditional citizenship training. If I were you, and if they will let you, I would visit a Young Pioneer group. It would be interesting to see the comparison with Scouting. Sounds like a great trip in any event.

Yep, they would be Direct Service units, standard in U.S. Embassies wherever they have dependents. They probably have to confine their activities to the embassy grounds or other diplomatic enclaves.

That question peaked my curiosity. I knew Scouting was abolished in the PRC (Mainland China) when the Communists took power, but I also knew it existed in Hong Kong under the British. According to this site http://histclo.hispeed.com/youth/youth/org/sco/country/scoutnatas.htm it still exists in Hong Kong, but not in the rest of the PRC. Scouting does flourish in Taiwan.

SDakota and others have stated it pretty well. There are always cases coming up to SCOTUS that attack Roe or other decisions under different legal theories. I don't really keep track, so I can't tell you what the current arguments are. The concern with Roe is that almost any lawyer who passed con law and the state bar can see it was wrongly decided. The crucial point of Roe was that there is a "right to privacy" in the U.S. Constitution that would prevent states from restricting medical procedures having to do with reproduction. I have never heard a cogent explanation of how you get that right out of the Constitution. So, it's weak in that area and with Alito on the Court, there would probably be enough justices to overturn it in one way or another. Of course, all that would mean is that it would be up the states to decide whether they wanted such restrictions or not. If Roe was overturned, there would be legislative insanity until it's all settled in each state. I think Alito and Roberts would be reluctant to be responsible for all that and would be reluctant to overturn it on that basis. Roberts pretty much said that. This, of course, shows the problem with the Court in general. The justices who feel in their hearts that something is right or wrong can always come up with a legal theory to justify a decision supporting it. BTW, there's a great discussion of this at http://www.hughhewitt.com/ . Hewitt is a conservative, constitutional law professor and talk show guy. Scroll down to Alito-Induced Panic Disorder.(This message has been edited by Kahuna)

And the egos are never more on display than during a televised hearing. This one was classic.

Aloha Prairie Scouter! We're having some great weather out here for the New Year and good surf, too! Ah the hearings were such a joy to my soul. I disagree with you a bit on the Republicans, but overall you are correct. Of course, they didn't really need to ask any questions as far as I could see. He demonstrated such a phenomenal ability to field the questions of the Democrats. His memory and ability to recall the details of cases he decided years ago just blew me away. Only once, did he falter and asked for time to go back and read an old case and submit his answers in writing. Personally, I don't think the committee needs to ask any legal questions at all. Anybody who gets to that level is going to be legally competent. There may be valid questions about his/her character or about issues of his/her legal ethics, but if they can't find any, they should confirm the nominee. Any Democratic president is going to nominate a liberal judge. Any Republican president will nominate a conservative judge. Was Bork too far right of the mainstream? Was Ginsberg too far left of the mainstream? Who knows. Both of them had no ethical problems or other issues. Both had judicial records with no ethical or legal questions. Ginsberg was confirmed by a Republican Senate. Bork was crucified by a Democratic one. The Democrats will, I predict, lose votes over this debacle. They never laid a glove on him and they treated him like one of the defendants at Nrnberg. Biden was the one who said they may as well not have hearings. It was the only thing I heard him say that made any sense.

Trevorum: Sorry to lose you, but there are mythologies and mythologies. All boys realize at some point that Greek mythologies, Pecos Bill, etc, are myths. Bible mythologies are different. How would you title the story of Pecos Bill? Western History Hero Stories? Bible Stories or Bible Heroes, whichever it may be, has an entirely different conotation. Religious stories or Bible stories are taught to children as fact. If a boy asks his dad about King Arthur, dad will say it's myth or legend. Bible stories come from a book with "Holy" on the cover. Not the same thing.(This message has been edited by Kahuna)

BrentAllen: I can't put my hands on the copy of the magazine at the moment to see what the title is. However, I don't see any difference if it is called heroes or stories. They are Bible stories. This particular hero (Elijah) called down punishment on a whole nation because of the actions of its' king. It's a religious story from the Old Testament of the Bible. Boys' Life could probably increase its' readership by putting in a centerfold section of female cuties, too, but would that be what you would want to see them do? Yeah, a handful of non-scouts probably read it, but it is the house organ of the BSA. Teaching boys about heroes is fine, but there are mythological heroes and there are actual heroes. Elijah was one of the former. Baden-Powell was one of the latter. I would submit there are lots of American heroes that could be written about that boys would find interesting.

P_S: I don't let the Republicans off the hook for ranting. They're doing their share, but they have a different job than the Dems. They only have to give him a chance to rebut some of the Democratic allegations against Alito. The harsh words between Kennedy and Spector this morning was pretty interesting. As to the ACLU, I would point out that the Nazi government in Germany did many good things for the Germans. They just had a few issues with neighboring countries and some racial groups. I DO believe they are interested in destroying the culture. I do not fully understand the reasons, but I have some educated guesses. The main thing I don't understand is why anybody supports them. I recently received an invitation to join the ACLU. I suspect one of my friends of sending in my name to them, or maybe they just mail to all lawyers in Hawai'i. They enclosed a business reply envelope, which I used to tell them I'd consider joining when they leave the BSA alone. Which I feel safe will be when Hell freezes over.

Ed, while I understand your point about a minority wanting to screw up everything for the majority. I have made the same point about Christmas celebrations. A distinct minority wants to eliminate Christmas for those who wish to celebrate it and have gone to great extremes to get rid of it. I am not one of those people. And "get over it" is a cop out to this discussion. It is not an answer to the issue. If we were talking about Esquire Magazine, the Honolulu Advertiser or certainly the Christian Science Monitor (to which I am a long time subscriber), or even Scouting Magazine, I would have no problem with that segment. But those are publication for adults. Boys' Life Magazine is not like those magazines. It is a publication for boys, ages 8-15 or so, and it is published by the BSA, an organization which stresses religion but supposedly does not discriminate among the various religions. It is sent to boys who are Christians, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindu or Unitarian. It does not seem to me appropriate to stress stories only about one segment of those religious groupings. It's interesting that in this discussion that no one to date has attempted to answer my continuing question: What is the purpose of including those stories in Boys' Life magazine? Why are there no stories from other religious heritages? I understand why Peewee Harris is there. I understand why stories heroism by Scouts are in there. But I'm not sure I can see a reason for Bible Stories. And I can certainly imagine the reaction of many Christians to seeing their children exposed to religions who worship what they consider false gods. BTW, it isn't a question of MY being offended. You can obviously take it or leave it. But what about the ten year old Buddhist boy I mentioned and his parents. What about their offense? Isn't this program about boys? Are we as adults here to promote our particular religious point of view? Does some editor at BL have the right and qualifications to decide which religious viewpoints will be presented?

"Get over it?" Apparently, there are some rather "thin skinned" people right around here. I fail to see the connection between what happened at your daughter's school and this discussion, except that some people don't get the point of certain issues. Sorry for leaving the topic is right.

"a nice thing to have" It's the greatest entertainment since the early days of Saturday Night Live. The Democrats have no clue what they are doing, which is talking away all their time and never asking questions. Biden used 20 of his 30 minutes talking. If Alito isn't talking, he can't say anything they can hang him with. It's all over. Alito is in and Democrats are still out of power.

Trevorum sez: Even if you are Jewish or Christian or Islamic, don't you think it would be interesting and enlightening to learn about the stories from other religions as well? Apparently, some don't.

This is not about the BSA in general, in fact, I suggest this goes counter to BSA's stated policy and other practices with regard to religion. This is about a specific series in Boys' Life magazine and the question again is: What's it doing in the magazine?(This message has been edited by Kahuna)

Berkeley, like most liberal enclaves, supports free speech as long as it agrees with their thinking.