NJCubScouter

Quixote says, not to me, because I haven't said much on this subject lately: If you honestly think it's about oil, you're seriously deceived. I don't think this is only about oil, or even primarily about oil. But, Quixote, if you think that this war has nothing to do with oil, then you are seriously deceived. At the same time, if you think it has nothing to do with the president (and his advisers) wanting to finish the job his father (and some of the same advisers) started but didn't finish, then you are again seriously deceived. And if you think it has nothing to do with the pres

ScoutNut says: Also, since you wear the last earned rank badge on your left pocket, many new Boy Scouts are wearing the new Webelos rank badge until they earn their Scout rank. I had heard that this was actually permitted, but I have looked in the current Uniform and Insignia Guide and find no mention of it. I have this exact issue with my son right now. He will be a Cub Scout for 4 more days. Right now he is wearing the oval Webelos badge on his pocket (on his tan Webelos/Boy Scout shirt.) On Friday night he will receive the Arrow of Light, and will immediately cross over to Boy

KoreaScouter says: You know, with all the fuss over Indian-related sports team names, it's only a matter of time before the American Indian Movement goes after OA for the ceremonies and costumes... Actually, it is my understanding that this subject has already come up and been discussed. My information comes solely from reading the Internet, possibly including posts on this forum, so others presumably have better information. However, my general understanding is that representatives of Native American cultures have discussed OA ceremonies and costumes with representatives of the

When I have encountered the term in Scouting, it has always been as a gathering of adult leaders on a camping trip or summer camp, at night, generally after the boys had (or were supposed to have) gone to sleep. This experience in the Boy Scout context goes back to the mid-70's, when my father would bring the JASM's (including me) along to the crackerbarrel (and then in my final summer of summer camp, I was an ASM.) Much more recently, at district-wide Cub Family Camporees, the CM's and ACM's and commissioners have gathered in the administrative cabin around 9:30-10:00 at night for coffee an

It sounds to me like both "sides" need "help," probably including a CR (or if "absent," a commissioner) to knock the CC's and SM's heads together and get them to play nice. The problems with the CC are obvious, but from the SM side, you say the patrol method exists only on paper. How are the boys getting the full benefit of the program if the patrol method exists only on paper? How does a boy learn leadership other than by being a PL, SPL or other position, and not just on paper? I speak not from a wealth of personal experience, other than what I remember from my own youth. My only so

By the way, another description of the basic facts may be found at http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/a-195-97.opn.html This is the New Jersey Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Dale's favor, which was reversed by a 5-4 vote on the U.S. Supreme Court. This decision includes the following: James Dale became a member of BSA in 1978 at the age of eight. He remained a youth member of BSA until his eighteenth birthday in l988. Dale was an exemplary scout. During his long membership, he earned many badges and honors, including the award of an Eagle Scout Badge, an hono

There is nothing in what I have read about the case (which includes what Merlyn posted) that suggests that James Dale was ever seen dressed in anything "ostentatious," or that he ever did so. The event that he attended, leading to the newspaper story that led to his removal, was not a "gay rally" with men dressing like ballerinas. The Supreme Court opinion makes clear that it was a "seminar"; a serious discussion of the issues facing gay teenagers. Elsewhere I have read that Dale participated in the seminar because he hoped that his experiences in dealing with the "discovery" process and wi

Bob says: There is no single religion conspiracy. Very clever Bob, change what I say and then respond to that, instead of responding to what I actually said. I don't even know what "single religion conspiracy" means, and I have never used the word "conspiracy" at all on this topic. What I am saying is that it is impossible to justify exclusion of gays except on religious grounds. I have seen people try to do it, by saying that anti-homosexuality is an established societal moral principle, but they end up running headlong into the fact that in our society, today, the consensus agai

Bob, as I have said before, and as I think TwoCubDad said recently: If I thought that exclusion of gays was really a principle of the BSA, I probably would leave. But it isn't. It hasn't even been adopted as a rule or policy. It is just based on an interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law, and I think it is a misinterpretation. And the fact that the representatives of representatives of chartered organizations interprets words a particular way, does not make it right. Also, as I have explained before, this is really about reps of one group of religions imposing their religious beliefs on

Bryan, I'll deal with your posts in reverse order. Packsaddle and OldGreyEagle have answered your second post, I would just add 2 things: One, the BSA itself disclaims any justification for its anti-gay policy based on prevention of child molestation. That is what the Youth Protection guidelines, and the ban on leaders (gay or straight) who have been convicted of sex crimes, are for. Second, the part about the average gay man having had 250 sexual partners is irrelevant, even if it is true. I have known heterosexual men who have probably had far more sexual partners than that.

Bob, I don't understand why you can't acknowledge the simple fact that the BSA policy should be rewritten to accomplish what you and I both agree should be the policy: No smoking at Scouting events. Until you do, it seems to me that you also risk endangering Scouts, by advocating a policy that does not adequately protect them from having "role models" who smoke. (My hands are clean: There is no smoking at any event in my pack.) I also don't understand why you can't answer my question about the Cub Scout leader book. Could it be that the BSA sometimes makes mistakes? Or is that not a

Bob, actually, if someone is writing a rule, his approach should be just the opposite of what you describe. It should not be to choose words that can be interpreted to prohibit what the writer is trying to prohibit. It should be to choose words that cannot be interpreted ANY OTHER WAY than to prohibit that conduct. Or stated another way, it should be to choose words that cannot be interpreted at all. Stated in terms of attitude, the writer should not assume a positive attitude by those who are expected to follow the rule, because those who take the positive approach are probably not the pe

First, let me say that I think smoking should be prohibited at all Scouting events, period. That should dispel any questions about my motivation in saying that the rule language quoted by BobWhite is NOT clear. Why don't they just come out and say it the way I said it: Smoking is prohibited at Scouting events and activities. They can leave off the period. The only time I have seen this a smoking policy in writing was in the Cub Scout Leader Book, and it had language that was different from what BobWhite quoted, and it indicated that smoking was NOT prohibited. It said something like,

I personally appreciate the information and perspective that Merlyn provides, even though I often disagree with his opinions. I hope he keeps posting.

And still nobody has even tried to explain how it is that Iraq got to the top of the "danger" list, or the "terrorism" list. North Korea has nuclear weapons, we know because they've said so. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and terrorists, including al Qaeda. Now, I know that the terrorists are mainly in portions of Pakistan that actually are not controlled by the central government, but doesn't that fact make people a little nervous? I also know that General Musharraf is our good buddy now, but I think it would take him about 30 seconds to not be our good buddy anymore if he decided it was in

One of my problems with this is, our actions have not matched our rhetoric. President Bush has been talking about Iraq and its threat to our nation since shortly after 9/11/01. He received authorization to do something months ago. And, Rooster, you're right, we don't know all of the evidence that our government has, but that only makes it more curious that we haven't done anything yet. When I say that, I don't mean that we should have sent ground forces in already. We have taken military action against Iraq several times since the end of ground action in 1991, with not a single soldie

Well, Rooster, if that is the case about the electors, I guess that what I "understood" was not correct. The fact that electors can vote for whoever they want, in some states legally and in some illegally (though the "rogue" vote still counts), makes the electoral system even more ridiculous than I already thought it was. We voters have no clue in the world who these 538 (1 for each Senate and House seat and 3 for D.C.) people are, and yet they are the only people in the country whose votes actually count for president. In and of itself, the "fix" for that would be to eliminate the actu

It is my understanding that ALL states have laws requiring their electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. However, if one of them violates the law, the consequence is the same as violating any other criminal law, i.e. probably a fine, though I don't know if it has really been enforced the few times this has happened. The law does NOT change the elector's vote -- it still counts for the "wrong" candidate. The often heard statement that the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, is both meaningless and not completely correct. The original, technical definition of "republ

Acco says: What are the federal and state non-discrimination laws? Last time I looked, you could discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation in many states. If by "sex" you mean gender, I was not aware of that. I thought that all states prohibited discrimination in employment, public accomodations, etc. on the basis of race, sex (gender), religion and national origin (and maybe others I'm not thinking of.) I know that New Jersey does, and the federal government does as well. (Note, every anti-discrimination law has some exceptions to it, so nobody needs to tell me that

Pat Buchanan is hardly your typical right-wing conservative. He really has his own "wing." He is not a typical isolationist either. His opposition to Desert Storm II is not surprising, considering that he was just about the only "conservative" to oppose Desert Storm I. Nor are his motivations in opposing war with Iraq in any way related to those of the "peace protesters," or to those of us who question whether the war is a good idea, but who if we did invade, would wave the flag (at least at first) and hope for an easy victory and a rapid withdrawal. To find out what Buchanan's mo

Does anyone want to suggest that the Old Baldy council admits gays and atheists? Sure. Not knowingly, though. I think this is a really interesting case. The BSA is probably going to say that it is in "compliance" with all anti-discrimination laws, because to the extent that its practices would otherwise violate those laws, the laws themselves are unconstitutional. This would be based on the "Dale" case. In other words, the argument would be that the aspects of anti-discrimination law that the BSA is "violating," do not atually exist as far as the BSA is concerned. In legal lingo

Kwc says: Yet we are about to do the same thing by invading Iraq. This is not a position that the US has taken in the past. We respond, we don't draw first blood. Hmm, I suspect Salvador Allende might disagree. (If he was still alive, that is, but he isn't because our CIA had him assassinated.) I think it might be more correct to say that this IS a position that the U.S. has taken in the past, but it's generally not one that we take anymore since the collapse of the USSR'nt. I agree with your main point though, Kwc. I understand why we want Saddam Hussein out, but I'm not sure

Rooster says: I trust him and our current government officials to analyze the situation properly and to act accordingly. I guess that's where we differ. I think that politics is playing too big a role in the decision-making about this. Karl Rove as much as admitted that when he said they weren't going to start the war last July or August because "you don't bring out new products over the summer." I think the timing had a lot to do with the elections last November, and the timing now has a lot to do with the elections a year from this November. That's not to say that politics did

Re: Elton John, Freddie Mercury, etc. Let's not forget that great "leading man" of the 50s and 60s, Rock Hudson. Not to mention one of the greatest players in the history of football, O.J. Simpson. I think that the public too often forgets that being able to act, or sing, or run with a football, does not necessarily mean that you have anything else of great significance to contribute, or that your life should be some sort of role model. I hate all of the celebrity news and gossip that seems to be all around me. I don't want to know who Ben Affleck is dating, I am barely sure whic

I heard on the radio that General Norman Schwarzkopf said, last night or this morning (i.e. after the latest report from the U.N. inspectors) that the U.S. should give the inspectors more time to work, and that war in Iraq is not inevitable, and might not be necessary. I find it pretty persuasive that a someone with Schwarzkopf's military record is saying this. I definitely trust him more than the politicians on all sides of the issue. And for the record, whenever i have heard the general make any sort of political remark, it has been pro-Republican, or at the very least anti-Clinton.