NJCubScouter

TwoCubDad, if what Greg Shields said is taken literally, I can think of several people much more scary and inappropriate than Justin Timberlake or Oliver North who he would also regard as a good choice, because they would be a "draw." Maybe Janet Jackson's most famous brother would be available. He would be a good "draw," right Mr. Shields?

Achileez, I don't think North's "past political stances" are really the point, although the writer of this article chose to present this controversy as being mostly about partisan politics. I don't think that's what it is about. Inviting an "avowed" Republican or Democrat to a Scouting event is fine, in fact inviting prominent office-holders to Scouting events, and seeking letters from politicians at Eagle Courts of Honor, and things like that, are entirely appropriate. My objection to Oliver North at a Scouting event is that he is a role model for the attitude that if you don't like what the law says and you feel your cause is just, you can break the law. Now, as far as I am concerned, that is an ok attitude for someone who is protesting a government action and decides to commit "civil disobediance" by sitting in at an embassy or something, as long as they realize that the consequence of their action may be a few hours spent in the criminal justice system before they are freed to picket again. (And anyway, I doubt that that person is going to be invited to speak at any Scouting dinners.) But this is not an ok attitude for a government official who actually has the power to take the government (and hence all of us) along on his illegal or semi-legal crusade, especially when he follows through and actually does it, as North did. Then there is the issue of lying. Oliver North said, under oath, that Ronald Reagan knew of the Iran-Contra connection in advance and thought it was a great idea. Ronald Reagan said he didn't know. One of them was lying, but the "Republican line" is that Reagan was telling the truth, so that would leave the lt. colonel with some "trustworthiness issues." That is the issue. By the way, I re-read this article, and noticed that it refers directly to the event I referred to earlier, which was the subject of an earlier thread. (The event where North and Ann Coulter spoke. The issue there was not a "past political stance," but the really nasty ideological and partisan statements made by Coulter at the Scouting event itself.)

OK, my memory was slightly fuzzy, it was a lot less than a year ago, but it did involve Oliver North (and another speaker, Ann Coulter, and both of them made partisan political remarks at a Boy Scout event.) The thread is named "BSA as a right wing organization?" and the last post was 10/22/03. If I said anything in that thread, that's what I think now, too.

Wasn't there a thread awhile back, maybe more than a year ago, that had a very similar story about Oliver North speaking at a Boy Scout function? I think we had the same discussion about whether he is an appropriate role model. As for the question at the end: ''Who do you want your son to be more like?'' Trick asked. ``Oliver North or Justin Timberlake?'' It's very "cute" but it's a false choice. We can do a lot better than either when providing role models for the boys. If the day ever comes when the only choice is between a celebrity known for a "wardrobe malfunction" and a former government official who participated in the hijacking of the government to serve an ideological crusade, and escaped a criminal conviction purely on what many of his fans would otherwise ridicule as a "technicality," we are all in big trouble.

The piece of cloth is the symbol just as those two boards nailed together are the symbol of a religion. I can't claim to be an expert on that particular religion, although I did spend "Scout Sunday" morning in a Presbyterian service. But I didn't think the symbol was the "two boards." (Three, when I am passing the Polish or Ukranian church.)I thought the symbol was a shape meant to represent the original "boards", just like a particular arrangement of stars and stripes are the symbol of our country, and the cloth is just the medium on which it is represented. If I see a cross in a painting or stained-glass window, or in steel on top of a church, or in gold around someone's neck, it's all the same symbol. You don't revere the material, you revere the symbol the material was used to make. (If any of this is incorrect, I'd appreciate it if someone (other than FOG) would tell me, but this is how it has always seemed to me.) As for your opinion, we all know what I think of most of your opinions. Yes we do, and that's just fine with me. It's when you agree with me that I have to start worrying, and re-examinining my opinions.

He showed disrepect for the flag by cutting a hole in it and draping it on his sweaty body. FOG, I guess you were paying more attention to him than I was. Actually when I heard the screamy/rappy stuff starting I just headed out to the kitchen to get re-supplied. After that I just heard my daughter comment that his second song was "really old," which in her limited perspective of time probably means that it was from 2001. I didn't really stop wandering until the commentators came back, which means that Janet Jackson's flash of brilliance was news to me the next morning on the radio. But back to the flag, it seems to me that you are putting the emphasis on the flag as a piece of cloth, rather than as a symbol embroidered on a piece of cloth. He may have done violence to the piece of cloth, but really not to the symbol, in my opinion.

Ed, I agree with you, the issue is respect, and maybe more to the point, whether the guy intended respect or disrespect for the flag, and how MOST of the audience took it -- not just those who sit there with a copy of the Flag Code handy. So, what do you think? I think the message that was intended by the singer and received by most of the audience was "Go U.S.A.!," and not one of disrespect.

FOG, some might not consider being able to distinguish among the "Conan" movies as a skill to be proud of. (This coming from someone who can give the basic plot lines and guest stars from all 10 Star Trek movies...)

Well, I agree, OGE, but I still don't know why people feel compelled to make things up and send their false information bouncing along to every computer on Earth. This does remind from a scene from Fiddler on the Roof, which I think goes like this: Tevye: As Abraham said, I am a stranger in a strange land. Other guy: Moses said that. Tevye: Well, as King David said, I am slow of tongue and slow of speech. Other guy: That was Moses too. Tevye: For a man who was slow of tongue, he talked a lot. It's funnier in the movie.

OGE, I was scared by the costumes of her and her whole entourage, and I pretty much ignored the whole thing. Meanwhile, my daughters and my older daughter's boyfriend were sneering at Janet Jackson being the "headliner" because as far as they are concerned she might as well be Ella Fitzgerald or Rosemary Clooney or somebody (if they even knew who those ladies were.) In other words, so last millenium. You remember, that was the one in which the current Governor of California was nominated for best actor in a foreign language, English Heh heh. Poor Arnold. Most politicians have skeletons in their closet, his are right out there on five cable channels most weekend afternoons. (But I did just see the ironically named Total Recall again, and that's a good one. He had even learned English by then.)

I get that the guy did not treat the flag properly, but I don't get the comparison by some in this thread to flag-burning (the anti-flag kind, not the flag-retirement kind) or other "desecrations" of the flag. In other words, he was trying to display the flag in a positive manner and show his patriotism, and in his zeal to do so, he (or his wardrobe person) committed an error. So he needs to do some studying before his Scoutmaster's conference for Tenderfoot, but I don't think we need to break out the tar and feathers.

By the way, if anyone wants more links on this, you can do the same Google search that I did: "urban legend" "bill gates" speech sykes "sykes" being the name of the person who actually wrote a version of this, as indicated in the one link that I posted. Interestingly, some of these links also debunk that speech that Kurt Vonnegut supposedly made in which he mentioned "wearing sunscreen" as a "rule of life." And until today, I believed that one!

I do agree with a lot of this, though it is stated in a harsh and somewhat humorous way. I see a lot of this kind of attitude in my kids and their generation, and to be honest, my parents' generation probably saw a lot of it in mine, but I have to say that the attitude of "entitlement," selfishness and basically delusion about what life is really all about, seems strongest in the younger generation. But again, that is a matter of "perspective." I do need to point out, however, that the attribution of this "speech" to Bill Gates is an "urban legend." It is one of many things that goes around the Internet that is simply not true. I have seen it before, and remembered being suspicious that Bill Gates would actually say some of these things, and sure enough, an Internet search revealed that he did not. I got the same result this time. The article at this link explains it all. I especially like the part about the Atlanta newspaper that published a version of this twice in three weeks, and attributed it to 2 different people. http://www.snopes2.com/language/document/liferule.htm

BobWhite says: We are also prejudiced against atheists. I will not try to foster a friendship with anyone that let it be known they lacked the moral integrity to recognize God's hand in their life. I will not do business with them, they will not enter my home. So I guess "A Scout is Friendly" only goes so far, eh? Of course you have a right to decide who you do business with and who enters your home. But to say that atheists as a group lack "moral integrity" does not seem particularly consistent with the Scout Law to me. Not only is it not "friendly" but it does not "respect of the beliefs of others" as stated in the explanation to "A Scout is Reverent." I have known many atheists (and in the interest of full disclosure, as I have said previously, at times when I was younger I believed that I was an atheist myself, though I don't think I was ever an "avowed atheist") and some of them were at least as "moral" as other people I have known who professed to be "religious." I think "morality" is demonstrated in how one treats what God has created, and not necessarily in whether (or how) one believes in or "worships" that which can only be believed, not proven, to exist. Now, if you are talking about the kind of atheist who goes around all the time saying God does not exist and stating or implying that other people shouldn't believe in him/her/it either, you can disregard part of the above. While still not necessarily indicative of a lack of "moral integrity," I find such people just as irritating as those who are contantly telling me that I should believe in a particular concept or formulation of God. And it's funny you should mention entering your home, because I have had people knock on my door, or stop me on the street, wanting to sell me on their particular version of God or how God should be worshipped. I don't let them in, and once I figure out why they are stopping me on the street, I move along. And none of the folks at my door, or waving literature at me on the street, have been promoting atheism. And just to make it clear, I am not saying the BSA should let in avowed atheists, not because I believe they are lacking in morality, but because I can't ingore the clear language of the Scout Oath and Law regarding God, and I believe the BSA's current practice allows as much leeway as possible within the words of those statements as to what one can believe and still qualify for membership -- well, except for religious beliefs regarding homosexuality, some of which are ok with the BSA and others of which are not -- but that is (mostly) a different matter.

As a parent of a student identified as "gifted and talented" and one who is in "special ed" (though really no less bright, but her emotional problems prevent her from living up to her "talents" in any consistent way), I just want to add my vote to Cubs, Eagle and molscouter and disagree with scoutldr. Both of these children have "special needs" that our school system seeks to address with special programs. The difference is that the programs for my daughter are mandated by law, while the "enriched" classes to which my son is assigned are mostly a product of my district's commitment to providing a suitable education to all children. The "gifted and talented" program in my district is always controversial, however, because there are always those who think it is not "fair." What would not have been "fair," however, would have been to require my son to continue to sit in a class where the kids were learning what he and a few others already knew. Just as it would not be "fair" to my daughter to require her to learn everything as fast as if she was in a "regular" class, when her "problems" prevent her from doing so. Now, finally after several years of this, she is at the point where she has shown that she can fit in to a regular class from at least an academic standpoint, and this is being looked into for next year. Oh, and my oldest child (who was in a "regular" class in school and never really applied herself) just racked up her third straight semester on the dean's list, so I hope that the "no honor roll" movement does not spread to public colleges anytime soon. I was blessed with children with a variety of "gifts," obviously.

I noticed Kid Rock was wearing some sort of American flag costume but frankly at that point I was busier being surprised that CBS and/or the NFL thought that a grunge-rap/Janet Jackson/Justin Timerlake concert was what most of the audience at a football game really wanted to see. I even said so, instigating an argument with my 21-year-old daughter and her boyfriend. (Well, I may have actually said, "Real men don't like rap." These kids today, they have no sense of humor.) Music from my generation (Aerosmith) was relegated to the pre-game, along with a very respectful rendition of the National Anthem from a singer who was attired much more respectfully than she usually is, and that tribute to the Columbia astronauts. Things went downhill by halftime, though. But as for Kid Rock, who I generally find detestable: OK, depending on what he was actually wearning, it seems that he didn't obey the Flag Code. Whether what he did was "illegal" would indeed depend on the current interpretation of the First Amendment, and I think Merlyn is correct, it is protected "speech." But what makes me curious about this discussion is, those of you who are upset about this, what do you think was being "spoken"? In other words, what "message" do you think Kid Rock was trying to send? Disrespect for the flag? Or for the country? I didn't get that at all, in fact just the opposite. He was "wrapping himself in the flag," both literally and figuratively. I doubt that most of his target audience knew that he was violating the Flag Code, if indeed he was. I don't think that was his intent. What they saw, and frankly what I saw, was a singer proudly displaying the flag of our country on national tv.

For whatever it's "worth" (ho ho), as of the close of business today, $10 billion in Canadian dollars were worth approximately $7.5 billion in U.S. dollars (at an exchange rate of $1.3253 Canadian/$1 U.S.) http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/exchange.htm

Coincidentally, I just read an AP article online that says our generals are planning for the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to last at least through 2006. I realize that that does not preclude a pullout before then, but it also means our government thinks we may have a reason to be there that long. Personally I think that if we believe things are going to continue on in Iraq in such a way as to require foreign troops (that would be us) to be there for 2 more years, then we have every reason to give very serious consideration to getting out as soon as we can -- even if it means that we are not there to guarantee the establishment of a "democracy" that seems extremely unlikely to flourish there, no matter how long we are there. This is just one of those instances where I think the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

ProudEagle, you are correct that some people blame FDR for things, but I am not talking about historians or political scientists writing books. I am talking about current "political discourse," if you can call it that. Turn on your local "conservative talk radio" station (probably the one that airs Rush Limbaugh) and I'd bet that if you listen for a few hours, you will hear 10 negative references to a member of the Clinton family before you ever hear any mention of FDR. It would probably be somewhat skewed today because most of what you would hear (as far as elective politics anyway) is about John Kerry, Howard Dean, etc., and the Kerry connection will draw in mentions of Ted Kennedy, but Clinton still will not be absent. And on a "normal" day (one that is not the day after a primary that seemed to mark the beginning of the end of an entire primary race), the Clintons will be back on center stage, being blamed for the price of gasoline, rap lyrics and why the scientists couldn't get a good signal from the first Mars rover. (That was an exaggeration for effect, there.)

Adrian says, apparently in response to a post of mine in the "Is God Dead" thread: Regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation, I must ask you if you are ready for the BSA to remove any barriers to membership related to it. I'll even give you a freeby and let you rule out all illegal actions. Do you feel that the BSA should allow all individuals of ANY sexual orientation who engage in legal actions? Some of them may be engaged in these actions publically, mind you. Where do you draw the lines within that category and how do you draw them? You realize, don't you, that a no discrimination policy in regards to sexual orientation or activity doesn't allow you to draw any lines within the group? Adrian, does it have to be so complicated? I already explained what my "philosophy" was. It was basically this: "My line-drawing criteria would probably require only two questions: One, does the person represent a significant threat of harm to the youth (or others) in the program, and two, is the person's avowed or known conduct seriously inconsistent with the Scout Oath and Law and related values." It seems to me that this is really not very much different than the approach the BSA takes; the difference, obviously, is that in the case of every gay person, the BSA would answer yes to the second question, while I would answer, not necessarily, you have to look at the individual, just as you do for anyone else. In other words the categories are really the same, but the BSA places gay people in a different category than I do because the current leadership has adopted as the belief of the entire organization, a religious principle that is in serious dispute, namely that homosexuality is inherently immoral. What I am really looking for is for the BSA to let units do what they do every day, and for which they are given a great deal of leeway, and that is to select their own leaders. Probably more than 95 of people who seek BSA leadership positions are NOT in any "group" that is "banned" such as avowed gays, avowed atheists or criminals. From this vast array of people, units get to choose their own leaders, but sometimes, especially for a "key" position such as SM, a person may not fill the bill. We have discussed a number of the ways this might occur. In the case of one major chartering organization (a church), the person may be a woman, which disqualifies her right off the bat, for units chartered to that church's local entities. In some units, the fact that a person is not a member of the CO, or a member of the right church, may be the disqualifier. And if the policy was as I believe it should be, any CO could include the fact that a person is avowedly gay as one of the disqualifying factors. Right now, the unit must exclude the person on that basis. I'm just giving the unit a tiny bit more of a choice than the BSA gives it currently. As for what you wrote, Adrian: You mention "ANY sexual orientation." How many are you talking about? I am aware of two sexual orientations, heterosexual and homosexual. (Maybe bisexual counts as a third one? I don't know.) Do you think there are more than that? And what are they? (Without scaring the readers too much, because I have a sneaking suspicion that that may the direction this is going in.) And when you say "that category," which category? Everyone with a sexual orientation? That includes everybody. Or do you just mean sexual orientation(s) that is currently excluded by the BSA (of which I am aware of one). In that case, the BSA has already drawn the line, I am just saying that the line doesn't make sense where it is, in light of the BSA's own declaration that it doesn't make judgments about which religion is right and which is wrong. And as far as me not being able to "draw lines within the group," first of all I have not accepted your basic premise (and have a feeling I won't when I finally understand what it actually is), so my line-drawing abilities remain intact. As I have told you, I am looking at people as individuals and not as members of "groups," and I want BSA units to be able to do the same. I suppose you could say that looking at people as individuals is the same as "drawing lines within a group," if you look at those individuals as members of a group. Therefore, I am not very likely to accept a premise that prevents line-drawing. (Meaning, not every gay person is acceptable as a BSA leader, just as not every straight person is acceptable. But again, for this particular characteristic, there is no need for me or the BSA nationally to draw a line at all. Leave it to the units to do that which they already do well.)

Am I missing a joke? I see FOG's posts fine. Well, many of the actual posts aren't fine, but you know what I mean.

"Bill Clinton will remain responsible for everything bad that ever happens in or to this country, until the end of time." Nah, that was Joe Kennedy and his spawn. Maybe for you, FOG, but I was referring to the conservatives who get paid big bucks to roll out the political/historical agenda on radio and tv. The Clintons long since passed the Kennedies as number one on that hate parade. The Kennedies are still firmly in second place, but it is really just Ted. JFK is almost a revered figure to conservatives these days who hold him up as a "good conservative Democrat" and "remember when Democrats cut taxes." Actually they just find him convenient because he is a Democrat who cut tax rates, never mind that he cut the top rate TO more than twice what it is now. RFK you don't even hear about anymore, and the many political careers of his children, cousins and their spouses all seem to have stalled or sputtered out, at one point I think four of them were either in Congress or statewide office, I am not sure how many still are, if any. And as Acco says, Rush and Sean aren't going to pick on Mrs. Arnold too badly. But Teddy, they and their disciples reserve special abuse for. One of the newer ones, Laura Ingraham, who I think is syndicated now, refers to him as the "Senior Balloon from Massachusetts." Very adult and analytical. I'm sure it's good for ratings though. But Ted and the other Kennedies are really on the sidelines at this point, and the talkers can't blame a senator for everything they think is wrong in the world (and beyond, next week there will be something wrong on the Moon and it will be Clinton's fault) the way they can a former president. And even better, they can lump in a current up-and-coming senator and possible future presidential candidate (as opposed to Ted) with the former president because after all she was responsible for everything bad that he did. I am not exaggerating, I hear about Senator Clinton and when and whether she will run for president every single day on the radio on my way home. Ted can't come anywhere close as talk-fodder. I am not even sure who is in third place on this eminent list. It would be a distant third. At this moment it is probably John Kerry but that is just a momentary thing, unless he actually has the temerity to defeat someone named George Bush which is what earned Bill Clinton and his family just the most amazing outpouring of hatred that American politics has ever seen (and that was before he lied under oath.)

Adrian says: Our troops are still all over the world from Clinton's "peacekeeping" missions. As I check my calendar, it appears that Bill Clinton has been out of office for 3 years, 8 days. If President Bush has left these troops all over the world, at what point do the missions become "his", at least as a co-owner? I would think that 3 years would be more than enough time for the change in ownership to have occurred already. Of course, since I do listen to "conservative talk radio" and sometimes watch Fox News Channel, I am aware that in some peoples' minds, Bill Clinton will remain responsible for everything bad that ever happens in or to this country, until the end of time. I think the slogan of WABC radio in New York is, "But what about Clinton," because that seems to be the slogan of most of the hosts, to be used several times per hour. Where are the protests to "end the occupation?" I'm actually not hearing that many "protests" to end the occupation of Iraq, unless you count what the Democratic candidates are saying as "protests." But to the extent there are "protests" about Iraq and not for other places where are troops are, I think the answer is obvious. It has been awhile since we've heard of any of our military people dying in Bosnia or anywhere else that they are -- except for Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think anybody really questions why we still have people in Afghanistan (and according to today's news, soon to cross the "border" into Pakistan), because we're still trying to get the people who attacked us on 9/11/01 and some of those who harbored them. And our "body count" in Afghanistan seems to be about one every few weeks. On the other hand, we are losing several every week in Iraq, and for what? Even if you favored the war, and I was ambivalent, what are we still hoping to accomplish that would justify losing hundreds or thousands more than the hundreds we have already lost -- more than 500 since the war "ended." Making Iraq a stable democracy? That seems so unlikely that I don't think it's worth keeping our people in the line of fire. As a nation, Iraq is a fiction anyway. It has not been completely under the control of the central government at least since the 1990-01 war, and probably before that. The different regions and ethnic groups in Iraq NEVER wanted to be part of the same country, except for the "minority" group (the Sunnis I believe) who was happy because they were dominating everybody else for so many years. The interim council that we appointed has had terrible difficulty getting anyone to agree on anything. Didn't we learn anything from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan? They spent more than 10 years getting their people killed in a country similar to Iraq (admittedly worse, but not that much worse) before they finally figured out that it was a losing proposition. When will we?

I've only read part of this very long article so far, and not completely in order. Parts of it seem to be yet another spin on "What's with these kids today?" which has been repeated by parents and other older-generational types from time immemorial -- and now by my generation (including me, sometimes in those exact words.) Elvis Presley music was going to be the destruction of society... before that it was probably Frank Sinatra, I don't know. The generation gap never goes away. In fact I just scrolled down and I see the writer does refer to Elvis. Seems he's covering multiple generations from the parental point of view, but of course the youth generation now is the worst, right? I agree with him about music, a lot of it today stinks, especially heavy metal and rap, but I can't ignore the fact that my parents said basically the same thing about music that I was listening to, and that still sounds great to me 20-30 years later. The current "younger generation" will probably always be the "worst" from their parents' standpoint, that's just the way it works. "In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking/ Now heaven knows, anything goes." That was written when, in the 40's? The more things change the more they stay the same.

Adrian, you wrote a post with 2 paragraphs that was apparently in response to some things that I said. The first paragraph seems to focus on this sentence: How is that different from the school owning and operating scientific equipment which presumes a philosophical disposition against idealism and some Eastern religions? What does that mean? What scientific equipment presumes a philosophical disposition against any religion? Are we going back to discussing the Inquisition again? As I recall Galileo had some trouble with religious folks because of his scientific equipment and the things he found with it.