NJCubScouter

Let's see if I can do this quickly and from memory.

First of all, there have been 41 presidents before George W. Bush; the reason he is counted as the 43rd is that Grover Cleveland is counted as both the 22nd and 24th because his terms were not consecutive.

The truly one-term presidents (became president by election, served one full term) were John Adams, lost to Jefferson; John Quincy Adams, lost to Jackson; Van Buren, I believe lost to WH Harrison; Polk, did not run again; Pierce, I don't think ran again, Buchanan, same (would not have been re-elected anyway; only president to enter office with country in one piece and leave with it in two, March 1861); Hayes, I don't think he rain again; B. Harrison, lost to Cleveland; Taft, lost to Wilson and actually came in third behind third-party candidate T. Roosevelt; Hoover, lost to FDR; Carter, lost to Reagan; GHW Bush, lost to Clinton. That's 12.

NW listed the 15 who were elected twice, though not all of them served out their second term (or in FDR's case elected 4 times, died very early in fourth term.)

Four were elevated from V.P. to president due to a death in office, then were elected to a full term but did not run for a second full term (T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, LBJ; though after 4 years as a voluntary ex-president, T. Roosevelt did try again as a third-party ("Bull Moose") candidate but lost.)

I previously listed the 5 who never got a chance to run because they died during their first term, and the 5 who were never elected president at all.

That's 41; though I have to admit that at first I missed Teddy Roosevelt because I thought he was in the two-term category, and I was coming up one president short.

I love presidential history (and trivia.)

Packsaddle, when I look at this thread it has 2 pages. The second page is formatted the same as every other page in this forum. On the first page, however, the "message screen" -- the actual block where the messages appear -- is about twice as wide as it usually is. It is so wide that on my monitor, the right-hand edge of each message is not visible. The column that usually appears on the right side of the screen -- with Join Scouter.com, Site News and the drawing of Baden-Powell -- is not visible at all unless I scroll over to the right, in which case I of course lose what is on the left side of the screen. I can read everything, I just have to scroll back and forth a bit.

I didn't mean to make a big deal out of it. It is one of those glitches that happens on web sites sometimes. I think the owner of this site does an excellent job keeping things "in order" and the one time I made a suggestion by e-mail about how the site could be made slightly easier to navigate, and the change was made almost instantly. This thing about the wide screen was just something I noticed and mentioned in passing just because it looked unusual.

NW, on your historical rundown, I suppose it's all in how you look at it. Five presidents died during their first term and therefore never had an opportunity to run for a second (WH Harrison, Taylor, Garfield, Kennedy, Harding.) Five were never even elected president once, having moved up from V.P. to president due to death or resignation (Tyler, Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Arthur, Ford.) Of those five, Ford is the only one who even ran for his own term, or at least is the only one nominated by his party for a term as president -- the rest were either seen as caretakers or for some other reason were not taken seriously within their own party. So I think for a realistic comparison, you need to subtract from the total of 43, these nine (leaving Ford since he was a viable candidate for election and almost won), plus GWB since we do not know yet how many terms he will serve, and you are down to 33 -- of which almost half were elected twice.

And then I could go into the reasons why some of the one-term presidents were one-term presidents, but I'll leave that for another time.

Thanks DS, that is good to know.

But TwoCubDad is also right, the "if nominated I will not run" etc. line was not spoken by Johnson. I have seen film clips of his speech, I believe what he said was much more mundane, "I will not seek the nomination of my party for another term as president" or something very close to that.

OGE is correct, Lyndon Johnson was the last president to decline to run for re-election. However, he did not do so because he had decided he did not want to be president any more. He, and/or Democratic leaders at the time, realized that due to the controversy over the Vietnam War, he faced an uphill battle to get re-elected, and he withdrew in order to allow another Democrat to have a chance of winning the general election. A little-remembered fact is that at the time LBJ withdrew, Eugene McCarthy had already placed a close second in the New Hampshire primary, making clear how much difficulty Johnson was in.

The previous president who did not run for re-election was Harry Truman in 1952. But he had already been president for almost 2 terms (as FDR had died a month or two after he was sworn in for his fourth term in 1945.) I do not know exactly why he did not run, maybe he decided almost 2 terms was close enough to 2 terms.

Most of the time the question comes up is when the president had been serving as vice president, the president dies, the new president serves the rest of the term and another full term, and then has to decide whether to for a second full term. This was true for both LBJ and Truman.

The last president who actually served only one 4-year term and then decided not to run for a second? Probably James K. Polk, elected in 1844. That is one of the reasons historians usually rank him as one of the best presidents. He came into office seeking to do a few major things (like capturing the southeastern U.S. from Mexico, establishing the border of the northwestern U.S., little things like that), did them, and left. You don't see that much these days.

Thanks, DS, I thought that was the rule. There have been some discussions here (and elsewhere) from time to time of what to do in rare cases where there is a legitimate reason why a boy might be involved with two troops (such as he spends part of each year with each parent, who live in states far enough apart to make it impossible to travel back to the "home troop" on a regular basis.) I don't remember the answer. Apparently there were ways to do it. But short of that there doesn't seem to be any good reason to have a boy registered in 2 troops.

I have been wondering about this lately because the other brand new Scout in my son's troop seems to be active in another troop as well, and his father is an ASM in each troop. (The troops are about 5 miles apart, same district, same county, same state.) I know that both of them went to summer camp with both troops this year. Based on what you are saying, he is probably only registered in one of them (and not to sound too "cold" or anything, but for insurance purposes I hope it is ours.)

DS, after I thought a bit more about your statement about GWB, it occurred to me that I thought he had made it pretty clear that he was going to run, though perhaps not with a formal announcement. Certainly every media outlet and politicians from both parties seem to also be under the assumption that he is running. That made me wonder, if he has not started raising money, he would be at a huge disadvantage.

Here's the answer:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/24/politics/main555427.shtml

This is a story from May of this year entitled "Bush Jumpstarts '04 Fundraising." Here are the first 2 paragraphs:

(AP) President Bush is asking more than a million potential donors to give money now for his 2004 re-election bid so he can focus on fighting terrorism and running the country.

I'll be depending on friends and supporters like you to get my campaign organized and operating across our country, Mr. Bush wrote in a letter dated May 16, the day he began his re-election campaign.

So, in other words, he's running. He's raising money like there's no tomorrow. Some of these recent speeches he has made have been on fund-raising trips also. He probably has not made the "official" announcement because there is no real need for him to do so. Incumbents generally do that toward the end of the year before the election unless there is a real challenger within his own party on the horizon. I don't think any Republicans (other than crackpots anyway) are even thinking about it.

Merlyn, I suppose that part of my earlier post was not very well written on my part. Maybe the fact that I put "solution" in quotation marks should have been a clue. It also does not excuse your twisting and chopping the words of my later post (which I do stand by completely) to try to make them mean something they don't mean.

I'll let someone else argue with you now.

Merlyn, contrary to the impression created by your slicing and dicing of my words, not once in this thread have I said what any government should do. Never did I suggest that the "middle ground" should ignore the rights of atheist kids. I frankly don't know what the middle ground would be. I just wish there were one.

I'll pick out one example of your mischaracterizations:

You seem to think that, if the BSA changes its policies to agree with what you consider to be the "true principles of scouting", that such government support should be allowed, even if your "true principles" still result in atheists being excluded.

That actually is the opposite of what I think, and what I said. On religion, I think the BSA cannot change its policy of excluding an avowed atheist who refuses to say the Oath and Law, EVEN IF IT MEANS LOSING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT. That is what I meant by "so be it."

TwoCubDad, right on the money as usual.

I did a Yahoo search on "laser firearm" (in quotes, because without quotes I got exclusively laser-sighting devices for real guns in the first few hits.) I get 2 sponsor hits, both of which are for laser-sighting devices for real guns, and the other 8 hits are a mixed bag, most of which appear to be training devices for law enforcement.

I think all this proves the point that the definition of what is prohibited must be improved. The average reasonable person who does not spend hours reading posts on the Internet, who is sitting there reading the G2SS, should be able to figure out what is permitted and prohibited just be reading it. If we have to go to these lengths, and if we cannot agree what it means, then that hypothetical person is not going to be able to do that. Or more accurately, some may reach one conclusion, some may reach another, and some may not be sure.

Is it such a big deal that it needs to be re-worded? Before the issuance of the current G2SS, apparently it never said anything about laser tag at all. They should just fix it.

CubsR, sorry, I'm not sure exactly where that is. I looked at Mapquest and it does not seem to be right in the downtown "office building area" so it might not be the most expensive area in the city, but it may still be a valuable property. I am sure that regardless of the area, it's going to be fairly expensive, because remember the council would have to pay for the not only the land, but the building it already paid to build.

I was at least half-serious, though I said it sort of jokingly, when I said other councils should chip in and pay for the rent (either at this building or elsewhere) if it would be too much of a financial burden on an urban council such as Cradle of Liberty to do so. It seems to me that there is an inequity here, because there are many parts of this country where the local government will still allow the BSA to stay rent-free, and even if Merlyn is correct that the federal courts will say otherwise, it may be years before that is uniformly the case nationwide. And given the fact that the Supreme Court's "establishment clause" decisions have not been completely uniform or predictable, it may never happen. In the meantime, why should a council in a more "progressive" area have to be any more of a "poor stepchild" than it (often) already is?

Or to put it another way: Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with a particular national membership policy, it is (as BobWhite so often points out) a national policy. If the burden of lost funding, having to suddenly pay rent, etc. etc. falls disproportionately on some councils, don't we all have a collective responsibility to make sure that the council is still able to deliver Scouting to the boys in that community? I would hate to see a council have to take thousands of dollars a month from program and put it into rent. How exactly this would work, I'm not sure. Increased registration fees and sharing of FOS contributions are two ways that spring immediately to mind. Not necessarily a pleasant prospect, but it is a way of protecting boys in particular parts of the country from having to bear an unfair burden for controversial nationwide policies.

Any objections? Any additional ideas on how this could be made to work?

Merlyn, at this point I'm not sure I even want to respond to you. You peronslly attack me, make up what you think I am advocating, and make up what you think I think. I suspect that some of the people that I usually debate with on here are having a good chuckle over this. (Including your use of your usual example, "Jews," which in my particular case would mean that I would be part of the excluded group.)

I cannot change the fact that the basic principles of the BSA include belief in God, nor is it reasonable for me to ask the BSA to change that fact. I have agreed with your constitutional analysis that the result of this probably is that the BSA no longer gets special financial favors from governments and governmental entities. If that is the case, so be it. I would like to see some sort of middle ground so that does not become the case, because I don't like seeing boys deprived of a program for no good reason. In order to avoid this, I'd like to see the BSA change the policy that I believe is contrary to the true principles of Scouting, but I can't see Scouting changing its long-standing, clear, published principles to admit avowed atheists who refuse to say the Scout Oath.

And by the way, I do not dislike atheists, though I am willing to make exceptions in individual cases.

TwoCubDad says:

I also agree with NJ that this is an area where the language needs to be fairly lawyerly (although I'm sure someone will point out that a concise, lawerly document is an impossibility).

I don't think the G2SS necessarily needs to be any longer than it is now. I have not read the whole thing with an eye toward whether I think the language is sufficiently precise, I am just looking at this particular sentence. (And if "sufficiently precise" seems like an oxymoron, it isn't. Covering every possible situation and conceivable "what if," and defining every single term in great detail, would indeed make it a document that is too long, and useless to most people. There is a balance between precision and simplicity that can be reached. Two words that pretty clearly don't match each other -- like in this case, "laser firearm," don't make it.)

Hey, why is everything so w i d e for this thread?

Oops. I mean, no possibility that he will NOT run. I am overrun with negatives, and I left one out. It's a bad thing.

Let's try this again:

He will run for re-election. There's no doubt about it.

DS, are you seriously suggesting that there is some doubt that GWB wants to run for a second term? I don't think there is any possibility at all that he will run. I don't think I have ever even heard or seen anyone suggest this before.

Well Merlyn, I didn't figure you would agree with me. In fact, the next sentence of mine after what you quoted was: "And I imagine that my "solution" won't sit well with many on either side of these issues." You were the main person on one side of the "issues" who I had in mind.

What can I say. Being a moderate in this world is becoming increasiningly difficult...

Acco says:

When not in field uniform but in an activity uniform most of the boys (Boy Scouts in particular) salute with the arm parallell to the ground, elbow bent, hand palm down touching the chest.

I am sitting here trying to follow these instructions, and the result is something I have never seen or heard of in my entire life. If it is the right hand and the palm is FLAT against the left side of the chest, that is just a hand over the heart. But palm down? That's a new one on me.

Rooster, I can agree that we have beaten the subject into the great beyond. I think the subject of religion in Scouting is one that continues to be worth discussing, but probably in the Issue and Politics section, and not right at the moment.

I have always shied away from discussing my own political and ideological views on here, except for the subjects we discuss directly, because I think it can only detract from the discussion of Scouting.

But if we are being asked just to make a prediction, regardless of our own feelings as to who should win, mine would be that President Bush will probably be re-elected. Nobody in the Democratic field really has the combination of charisma and name recognition needed to overcome the advantages of incumbency -- including having won two wars. (But that's assuming that the second one still looks like a "win" by then, which is something we shall see.)

I hope this does not come as a surprise to anyone. I would have been surprised if the result were anything else.

I would also say that the BSA has no room to complain, as it has brought this problem on itself...

...well, I would say that, if the only issue involved were the ban on avowed gays. But I see that this time, the ban on avowed atheists is part of the city's reasoning as well, which sort of puts me into a quandary. While (as I have said many times) I believe the anti-gay policy goes against the true principles of Scouting, it would be difficult to ignore "duty to God" and "A Scout is Reverent," which have been part of Scouting from the beginning.

The way I resolve this, at least for myself, is that I suspect that if the BSA had made the "gay thing" a non-issue by dropping the ban or permitting local option, then many government entities might have "looked the other way" when it came to the "atheism thing." What the federal courts would have done, I can't say. And I imagine that my "solution" won't sit well with many on either side of these issues.

It's also pretty ironic that the Cradle of Liberty Council does not support the gay ban, but is losing its free offices because National isn't giving it a choice. Hey, here's an idea. Maybe all the councils that do support the gay ban should kick in some money so that the Cradle of Liberty council can rent some office space. Same goes for any of the other "urban" councils who lose office or camp space on public land because of this. At least then the supporters of this ridiculous policy would be putting their money where their mouths are.

Rooster says:

Nevertheless - NJ, my point seems to have escaped you.

Perhaps. It has been a bit of a challenge to follow what your point actually is, since you have stated it several different ways. Be that as it may, we'll go with how you say it this time.

My contention was that troops (via their adult or boy leadership) should not force Scouts or Scouters to pray these prayers routinely and/or prohibit any other kinds of prayer simply because they are not generic and/or standard.

So maybe there is no problem at all. I am not aware of troops "forcing" Scouts to do anything. What I mainly do know is what goes on in my son's troop. At the end of every meeting the SPL says, Scout Sign, Scout Oath, everybody says it; then he says Scout Law, everybody says it; then he bows his head into his encircled arms, everybody else (boys and adults) does the same, and together they say "May the Great Master of all Scouts" etc.

Is that "forcing"?

By the way, for whatever it's worth, I believe that nobody ever actually told my son to do this. Nobody ever showed it to him individually. At his first meeting he saw everybody doing the Scout sign, oath and law, and he knew those from getting Arrow of Light, so he did them. (I had also made sure he practiced a bit before the meeting, so he could try to get the Scout badge right then.) Then he saw everybody else doing the Great Master thing, and he followed along. I have a strong feeling that sometime during his second or third meeting, he said to someone else in his patrol, "hey, what are we supposed to say when we bow our heads at the end of the meeting?" They told him, so now he knows what to say.

I realize that there are exceptions, but I'd be willing to bet my house that the following is true - Troops that evoke standard and/or generic prayers routinely, recite them with the same kind passion of that a court stenographer might display. Furthermore, they are usually mumbled to the point whereas only those familiar with the prayer can fully recognize what is being said.

I wouldn't even try to dispute that. I also think that if a unit is satisfied with this, there is nothing in the BSA program that I am aware of that says they can't, or shouldn't, do it.

I believe we should encourage actions that impassion our Scouts about their faith, not alienate them from it.

I think you are making a leap from mumbling and lack of "passion" to "alienation." But again, I think your opinion can be put into effect in your troop and those other troops that follow your advice. What my son's troop does seems to work for it.

Mark, I was going to make the same point in response to FatOldGuy, but since you have made it, let me just add an example that is near and dear to my heart since I have had some real-life "discussions" (read: near-arguments) over it. I mentioned it earlier in this thread.

The G2SS says that boating on flowing waters (I forget the exact terminology) is not an approved Cub Scout activity. So, what happens if a family with a boy of Cub Scout age (let's say he's 10 years plus 364 days) decides to go canoeing on a reasonably mild, wide, slow-moving river, with no other Scouting families? Does the BSA care? No. Now, why is it ok if the family decides to do it, but not ok if the Cubmaster decides to do it? In my opinion, it is because it is not a moral issue, it is a safety (and liability) issue. The BSA has decided to draw a bright line between Cub and Boy Scouts as to where boating may take place, for safety reasons. However, a family is perfectly free to make its own judgments, based on the activity involved, and the capabilities of the boy (i.e. strength, swimming, common sense in case of emergency, etc.) The family also gets to decide for itself how much risk it is willing to take. Some families might take their pre-teen children on the Lehigh River (more challenging), as opposed to the Delaware River (less challenging.) I would not. But for BSA unit-related activities, the decision has already been made.

Now, some may say that because the BSA rules do not take individual circumstances into account, they may prohibit some activities that are in fact safe. I think this is true. I also think it is fine. The BSA seems to feel that if it is going to "err," it is going to be on the side of safety. I remember when I was a Boy Scout, my predecessor as SPL regularly went hunting with his family and in fact was a NRA-licensed gun safety instructor. If a whole patrol full of such boys wanted to go hunting, it probably would be very safe (probably safer than taking a brand new Boy Scout kayaking, which I believe you can do.) And yet the BSA says no hunting for Boy Scouts. I don't have any problem with that.

Bob, I do think you misunderstood my post. I understand what the intent behind the (apparently) new policy language is. I think it is a good thing. I am pleased that the BSA is attempting to prohibit, in your words, "activities where guns are pointed at people regardles of what comes out the barrel, bullets, paint, or laser."

The problem I have is with the language used. I'm going to make a statement that is derived from the "the law" but it also is applicable to all rules, regulations, policies etc. of any group or entity. That statement is this: A rule should be phrased in a way that a reasonable person will be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and under what circumstances. I have noticed that the rules and policies of the BSA do not always measure up to this standard, but that is not really a criticism of the BSA, as the laws passed by Congress and state legislatures, and all other levels of government, and the policies and rules of all manner of organizations (both public and private) do not always measure up, either. The answer is that when one discovers ambiguous language in an adopted law, rule, policy, etc., one tries to change it. But -- and this is all I meant about the flashlights -- you of course want to make sure that the new wording is clear.

Having said all that, does the thing that one points at another human being in a game of "laser tag" fall under the common understanding of what a "firearm" is? I don't know for sure. I have a never seen a laser "weapon" up close. I do think (and others here have confirmed this) that it is probably a "stretch" to call it a "firearm." The laws of physics aside, it does not emit what most people would understand to be a projectile, nor does it use any sort of explosive charge (which is probably where the word "fire"arm comes from.)

So all I am saying is, the BSA should fix the wording. They could refer to "simulated firearms" or objects that look like firearms. I don't know, exactly. But I know they can come up with better language than they have now.

Packsaddle, I think you are correct. A laser gun (or whatever it is called) is not really a firearm. The language should be clarified. (Hear that, BSA? Clarified. Not with language about a "beam of light" that makes adult leaders wonder if they are supposed to start confiscating flashlights. OK?)