Prairie_Scouter

How very tragic. I hope that the Jambo can recover, emotionally, so that this can still be the experience of a lifetime for the Scouts there. I have always found Scout camps to be as safe as they can humanly be made. Nonetheless, when you have that many people together in some place, the odds are that something is going to happen someplace along the way. Let's hope that they can deal with the situation and move on.

Rooster, We can go around and around and nit pick each other to death. Let's not, and call it a day. When all is said and done, I'm sure that we'd both just as soon get our boys out of there as quick as we can, regardless of why they got there in the first place. Besides, I need to get to work on that time machine.

Well, Rooster, if you were going to offer to answer ALL of my question, I would have thrown in the one about how can I retire now instead of waiting until 65? In any event... You seem to think that I'm looking for the worst in anything the Bush Administration does. That's not true, really. When he was first elected, although I didn't vote for him, he seemed like a nice enough guy and tried to give him a chance. Just hasn't worked out for me; I guess. I don't see him reaching "across the aisle" like he promised, for one thing. If you want to look for other cases of mass murder being enacted on their citizenry, pick the African nation of your choice; you've got a pretty good chance of naming one that has a "bad guy" in charge that is trying kill off it's citizenry. Not referring to North Korea or China. You're right, one size does not fit all. However, one report I've seen estimated that Iraq was 5 years away from being a nuclear threat to us, while North Korea presented an imminent danger. Yet, we decided to strong action against Iraq, and have taken a more laid back approach to North Korea. Seems like the priorities are mixed up. We could have easily waited on the Iraq issue, I think, and possible avoided the war altogether if, as the president said, the WMD issue was a reason for invasion. Gee, I don't suppose you're anti-UN, are you? Treaties? Ok perhaps I should have used the more generic "international obligations". And, it's really not fair to play games with the wording by asking what treaty "they agreed to and then ignored". If that were true, we'd have to renogiate every treaty we've ever agreed to every time there is a change in administration. Well, there's the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. (all so we could install the anti-missile defense system that only works if you put homing beacons on the targets. That hasn't stopped the Administration from forcing implementation even tho it doesn't work) There's the Geneva Conventions, which we've been playing footloose and fancy free with. There's the Kyoto Protocols, which we gave every indication of signing on to, and then backed away from late in the game. And, we're busily working towards violating the treaty, and I forget the name, that prohibits the use of space based weapons systems. Saddam? No, he's not dead, but the citizens of Iraq probably don't take much solace from that. At the latest count, we've managed to kill more citizens in Iraq than we've killed opposing military forces. Don't for a second think that I was defending Saddam; I wasn't defending him or his regime at all. But, even Republicans are saying that we can't be the policemen to the world. If the only criteria we need to invade another country is that we don't like them, we're going to be very busy. Personally, I think that we SHOULD take action when something shameful is happening in other parts of the world. Saddam was a bad guy, and he was doing bad things. But, that isn't the reason we were given for going to war. If that was the reason, then the American people should have been told that. Maybe we would have all been in favor, maybe not. It's not our job to install democracy throughout the world. If people want it, we should be willing to help them, but to force it on them is not our job. But, now, back to the really important question, if you're going to answer ALL my questions...what about that retirement thing?

Rooster, So, we're not supposed to believe the findings of the 9-11 commission? At what point do we have enough evidence? Who would you find believable? Don't you find it kind of bothersome that so far nobody's been able to substantiate any of the claims the U.S. made before invading Iraq? At some point, don't you need some evidence? Saddam is/was a really bad guy, no doubt about it, and that's a good thing for the U.S. because that seems to be the only credible reason that we have for invading Iraq at this point. But, if the reason we did that is because he was a terrible leader and killed a lot of his citizens, I guess we've got a few more invasions in front of us, given the number of bad leaders who are killing their citizens that are still around. Which does bring the question of why haven't we done anything about other occurences of this kind of thing around the world? The U.N. isn't there to forward the agenda of the United States. It certainly isn't perfect, but I think it does a reasonable job of trying to bring together a large number of countries, each with their own agenda. It doesn't help the U.N. that the U.S. is walking around basically saying, "we're a member of the U.N., but we're not going to let that stop us from going and blowing up some other country if we don't happen to agree with their agenda". Sure, we could walk away. We've walked out on other treaty obligations during this administration; what's one more? What makes you think that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with "righteousness"? And, how is suggesting that someone read a book "slanderous"? Besides, I don't think that the United Federation of Planets is the right analogy. I think we're closer to Klaatu from The Day the Earth Stood Still, informing us that we're getting too dangerous to be allowed out of our own back yard. What part of our Judeo-Christian ethic says if you don't like somebody, it's ok to kill them?

Ah, ok, got it. Thanks for the correction on the SM "creating" positions.

This is a crosspost from a thread in Council Relations. After reading this, I thought it would fit better here..... BSA is shrinking, for a variety of reasons, I think. BSA can come up with things like "Learning for Life" to make the numbers look better, but the fact remains that the organization is getting smaller. Based on the discussions we like to have here, we could point to ideological issues and say that THAT's why BSA is getting smaller, but, to be honest, I think that that really has little to do with BSA's problems. I think very, very few people come to Scouts asking "do you allow gays and athiests" before they sign up. For the vast majority of people, it's really just not that important. BSA has a model that is meant to grow character in growing boys, and uses the outdoors as its mechanism for doing so. One argument could be that not as many people want to visit the outdoors as in the past. That is refuted by the number of National Park visitors and the usage of state parks, I think. But, it could be that people want their outdoors in smaller bites than before. The outdoors in Scouting means weekend, and longer, trips. It could be that people don't want to commit that much time, when other venues are available that can be said to offer equal value. A possible problem might be the lack of effort to keep up with the times. What do we read here? "The program is fine", "the program has worked for almost 100 years", "all you have to do is follow the program". Maybe the program isn't fine if the goal of BSA is to reach as many boys as possible. But, maybe that's ok, too. So, what if BSA went with a "local option" in the program as well as application of other "issues". I'm thinking of something like the Venturing program, akin to the idea put forward by otheres here, but applied across BSA all the way down to Cubs. Something like this..... The overall "character" message remains the core of BSA. The outdoor program remains the core mechanism of that for now. But, BSA creates alternative core programs that reach the same goals, but through different mechanisms. Perhaps a "technology track" for areas where there is a large interest in computers or other technology related activities. Perhaps a "sports" track. And a small number of others, to keep it manageable. Basically, take things that are currently small elements of the program, and make them programs of their own. You intertwine the elements of character building into all of them. Now, this is dramatically different than the historical underpinnings of Scouting, but so what? The idea is to help boys grow, not give them a history lesson. The biggest problem I see in BSA is the attitude that "everything is fine". Innovators need not apply. And maybe it is fine. Maybe BSA should satisfy itself with a particular focus, regardless of what their membership size becomes. But, if we want an organization that reaches out to boys of all kinds, then maybe some changes are needed to remain relevent. Change isn't always a bad thing, and just because something has been done the same way for 100 years doesn't mean that you can't improve on it. So, perhaps we provide a local option, and give the local units more freedom to choose among a number of possible programs provided by BSA. BSA can control quality by providing, say, an annual checklist that says "here are 10 key components; you have to have 7 to be considered a BSA unit" (similar to the Quality Unit Award now). And, the next thing I'd do is get every paid executive together and say "you know that whole thing about running BSA like a business? FORGET THAT!".

I believe that the Handbook also allows the Scoutmaster to create other positions, as needed, within the troop. While not "patched" positions, these qualify a Scout for "time in a leadership position". Regards the list, should Asst Patrol Leader be on there as well?

Any time you get a lot of money involved, you can expect power struggles. Any time you've got a big organization involved, you can expect power struggles. But, we also shouldn't get too carried away. For every Council that has problems, there are probably 50 that do just fine. For every paid executive who's, well, "a jerk", there are probably 50 who are good people. BSA is shrinking, for a variety of reasons, I think. BSA can come up with things like "Learning for Life" to make the numbers look better, but the fact remains that the organization is getting smaller. Based on the discussions we like to have here, we could point to ideological issues and say that THAT's why BSA is getting smaller, but, to be honest, I think that that really has little to do with BSA's problems. I think very, very few people come to Scouts asking "do you allow gays and athiests" before they sign up. For the vast majority of people, it's really just not that important. BSA has a model that is meant to grow character in growing boys, and uses the outdoors as its mechanism for doing so. One argument could be that not as many people want to visit the outdoors as in the past. That is refuted by the number of National Park visitors and the usage of state parks, I think. But, it could be that people want their outdoors in smaller bites than before. The outdoors in Scouting means weekend, and longer, trips. It could be that people don't want to commit that much time, when other venues are available that can be said to offer equal value. A possible problem might be the lack of effort to keep up with the times. What do we read here? "The program is fine", "the program has worked for almost 100 years", "all you have to do is follow the program". Maybe the program isn't fine if the goal of BSA is to reach as many boys as possible. But, maybe that's ok, too. So, what if BSA went with a "local option" in the program as well as application of other "issues". I'm thinking of something like the Venturing program, but applied across BSA all the way down to Cubs. Something like this..... The overall "character" message remains the core of BSA. The outdoor program remains the core mechanism of that for now. But, BSA creates alternative core programs that reach the same goals, but through different mechanisms. Perhaps a "technology track" for areas where there is a large interest in computers or other technology related activities. Perhaps a "sports" track. And a small number of others, to keep it manageable. Basically, take things that are currently small elements of the program, and make them programs of their own. You intertwine the elements of character building into all of them. Now, this is dramatically different than the historical underpinnings of Scouting, but so what? The idea is to help boys grow, not give them a history lesson. The biggest problem I see in BSA is the attitude that "everything is fine". Innovators need not apply. And maybe it is fine. Maybe BSA should satisfy itself with a particular focus, regardless of what their membership size becomes. But, if we want an organization that reaches out to boys of all kinds, then maybe some changes are needed to remain relevent. Change isn't always a bad thing, and just because something has been done the same way for 100 years doesn't mean that you can't improve on it. So, perhaps we provide a local option, and give the local units more freedom to choose among a number of possible programs provided by BSA. BSA can control quality by providing, say, an annual checklist that says "here are 10 key components; you have to have 7 to be considered a BSA unit" (similar to the Quality Unit Award now). And, the next thing I'd do is get every paid executive together and say "you know that whole thing about running BSA like a business? FORGET THAT!".

Well, SOMEBODY had to protect every Americans right to a Cuban cigar

"Peace loving left"? As opposed to what? The "war loving right"? Both claims are equally silly. I remember Bush being pretty ineffective before the attack on 9/11. He seemed to still be finding his way. Granted, it was early in his first term, but there was nothing there to indicate a great leader in the making. I'd propose that nothing has happened since to support such a view, either. Here's an old joke, but it fits the situation... "Hey, did you hear they finally found the WMDs?" "Yeah, they were in North Korea!" And, I'd prefer that we not attack Jimmy Carter. He's probably the last intrinsically good man elected president. Granted, overall, not a very good president, but a very good man. As far as what would have happened had he won a 2nd term, we'll never know, but we probably wouldn't have had the Iran/Contra problem. Reagan will be remembered for giving America back it's pride, something that was taken away by his fellow Republican, Richard Nixon. I personally don't think that Bush is corrupt, but I do think he is being misguided by his handlers and advisors. History may show that he presided over a country with deep divisions, and did little to correct that. As far as the claims being made by "the left" that you cite? Probably no more preposterous than trying to bring down a president for no reason other than his not being able to keep his zipper up.

Kahuna Actually, that was me. OGE, those comments were something I saw on a cable TV news report some time ago where they were asking retired military leaders what concerns they would have about the U.S. not abiding by the Geneva Conventions by making arbitrary decisions about who was covered by it and who was not. I think the "field of battle" is part of the problem. The Administration is taking the stand the the whole world is the field of battle, so anywhere they catch someone makes them an enemy combatant. Unfortunately, international law hasn't kept up with modern conflict, and the administration is taking advantage of that. I'll have to check again, but it was my understanding that the majority of those at Gitmo were not typical warriors, ie, they weren't on a traditional field of battle carrying weapons. Of course, it's hard to know because the administration has made it their policy to imprison these people without charges or evidence that they are willing to reveal. According to reports that I read, the majority of those released were released because of lack of credible evidence. Once again, hard to know in this adminstration of secrecy. I'm sorry, but hasn't pretty much EVERY legitimate intelligence source said that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda before the war started?

I've been reading quickly, Barry. Hopefully, someone else has passed on that OT means "Off Topic" Well, just because I happen to take a particular side on these discussions doesn't mean I don't understand the other side. And, I didn't say that I disputed the elections, only that I'd be interested in seeing the details on the results in regards to exactly what question was on the referendum (this can affect how people vote), and what the demographics were of the people that voted. Sometimes elections are won because the opposing side didn't do a good job of getting their people out to vote. I never said I questioned the results of the election. Those are "facts" that I'd like to have. I looked back through most of my posts on this topic, and didn't see any particular mention of making the point that Christians are dominating the direction of politics. I do think that there's a religious conservative minority that is making itself very visible at this point. Regardless, I'd say that while it's untrue for the majority of the country, it's probably a good observation for the direction of the Republican party at this point. I also didn't say anything about most people being religious fanatics. I think that most people look at groups like "Focus on the Family" and such and wonder who those people are; I don't think that they represent the majority view, either. They say they do, but when you look at the details of their agenda, I wonder about that. I'm wondering what I've said on this topic that makes me some sort of liberal extremist? Thinking that this president is doing an incredibly poor job in most areas? Accusing the administration of ignoring our treaty responsibilities? We're doing it. There's no question about it. OGE, I don't think that anyone has been sent to Gitmo based on their library usage, but based on how the law can be used at this point, it's possible that someone could be declared an enemy combatant and sent there, citizen or not, for a wide variety of reasons that could then be kept secret. The law itself could be used responsibly, and mostly is, I think, but it is troublesome that the president would like the debate to include the removal of oversight provisions that are now in place. That was the point, not the unlikely possibility that the law would be misused in such a way. Kahuna, the Patriot Act was passed by Congress, but as with all Congressional sessions, the agenda is set by the Executive Branch. That's just how it is. Actually, the concerns I cited about ignoring the Geneva Conventions were not mine, but just passing on what's been said in interviews with military leaders. They're the ones that want the Administration to follow the Conventions. You're right, also, that we have no obligation to follow the Conventions in some of these cases, but it has been our history, I think, until this Administration, that we largely followed the Conventions regardless. As to whether the guys at Gitmo could be released only to show up later with weapons, sure, they could. On the other hand, so far I think the total number of prisoners actually charged with anything is close to zero, while about 200 have been released after a couple of years of imprisonment when it was found that they had done nothing wrong. Of course, it's hard to know because the charges are kept secret, the evidence is kept secret, and they have no right to counsel. Does anyone here think that that's how America should be doing things? Yes, Kahuna, we are at war. Unfortunately the war on terrorism being fought in Afghanistan is taking a back seat to the invasion of Iraq, which, as far as anyone can tell at this point, has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. This is apparently part of some other agenda that the Bush Administration has that hasn't seen the light of day yet. I think at this point, the Republicans have lost the right to accuse the Democrats of throwing money at things. I agree, tho, that it may not be any better under a Democratic administration. I doubt that it could get any worse, tho. Both major parties are, at this point, more interested in taking political potshots at each other. They're like a bunch of little kids.

Well, this could end up being a Constitutional debate, and then it's really just going to matter what your view of the Constitution is, ie, are you an "originalist", or one who sees the Constitution as a living document, etc. Comments about the founders doing this or doing that seem to indicate that there are people who think that their hand was driven by some divine force, almost like the writers of the Bible. History and their writings would seem to indicate otherwise. Wasn't the Constitution driven by compromise to get the colonies to remain together, at least in part? And while the founders did a wonderful job, I don't know that I'd expect them to know what was going to happen 100 or 200 years hence. They didn't bother to include women in the right to vote, for example. Only land owners could be voters, etc. To answer the question about what this administration has done to limit my freedoms... Well, thusfar, the other side of the aisle has managed to force compromise enough to keep the most draconian attempts thus far, but... We do have the Patriot Act, which is well-intentioned, and meant to protect us, but includes invasions of our privacy, and now the administration would like to remove judicial safeguards to make sure these powers are not abused. Now, there are probably those who say "well, if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear". Well, people thought the same thing before the McCarthy hearings. The Japanese probably thought that they were good Americans until other good Americans threw them all in prison during World War II. The administration is currently attempting to extend the Patriot Act so that anyone, citizen or not, can be seized at anytime, on U.S. soil or not, and held without charge for any period of time, simply by being declared an enemy combatant. And who gets to decide that? The president, without recourse. There's a real danger here that if we play footloose and fancy free with the Geneva Conventions, our enemies will free to do the same when they capture our citizens. You can be wiretapped and have your house searched covertly, and you'll never know it was done, and they don't have to tell you. Check out a library book and nuclear weapons, and you too can find yourself basking in the sun at Guantanamo Bay. My "right" to clean air is being taken away as this administration tunes rules and regulations to allow big industry to pollute further. Energy policies are being formed without seeing the light of day, taking away my right to transparency in government. "No Child Left Behind" is a nice idea, until you find out that it's yet another unfunded mandate. The president himself decrease it's funding a year after it was passed. My child's right to an education is being hampered by schools that now spend a certain amount of time every year to learn how to take the tests that are being forced on them. Now, not all of these "rights" will be listed in the wording of the Constitution, but I think they are something we expect, nonetheless. Talking points for liberals? Sure. But I'm way past the point of letting this president say "trust me", and I'm going to take his word for it. I voted for his dad, but this man, no thanks. As far as the votes in states on gay marriage, yes, the people have spoken, but I'd be interested in looking in those states to see exactly what people spoke. So, now that we've gotten WAY OT, are we there yet?

Rooster, you could be right, but I just can't see how BSA could come along and say that they're non-sectarian, but then say, for example, that they're going to implement all of the beliefs of, say, Catholicism, in their policies. Maybe the wording of BSA literature would allow for that, but I don't think it's within the spirit of what BSA tells everyone. And from a more pragmatic view, if they were to do that, wouldn't a whole bunch of folks quit? And while we're discussing if many roads lead to God, or if just one road leads to God, wouldn't it be interesting if through generations of meddling and manipulation of God's message, it ended up that none of those roads ending up leading to God?

Hi Barry, Ah, you Oklahoma guys. I have friends in Tulsa and Enid. We always have really interesting discussions :-) Thanks for your thoughtful post. I'd be the last one to identify myself as representing the political mainstream I just represent me. On the other hand, I'm not sure anymore where the political mainstream is. I don't think the mainstream is represented by the present administration. The items I mentioned probably are talking points for liberals, but they're also major failures of this administration in my view. We did have a terrible tragedy on 9/11, there is no doubt about that. But that's been used as an excuse to do things that we all would have viewed with disgust just a few years earlier. If we have to protect America by using the same tactics as our enemies, what exactly are we protecting? In religious matters, we should, I think, err to the side of freedom of expression. As I've said, every religion should be able to act as they see fit, but they shouldn't be allowed to place their views into civil law in such a way that limits the religious rights of others. That's what the gay marriage laws are about. This is a pretty gray area, tho. The U.S. passed laws disallowing polygamy, which is okeedokee according to the LDS. I don't know where to draw the line.

I agree, OGE, I certainly do. I don't know how INS should fix up their act, but whatever we do to support the immigrants who have found their way here is going to need the support of the American people. There's going to be difficulty in doing that as long as some perpetuate the myth that all immigrants come here to steal American jobs and are basically all ne're do wells. What would I do? Well, the reality is that they are here, and weeding them out will use up a fantastic amount of resources at this point. So, the 1st thing I'd do is have the president live up to his campaign promise to provide a general amnesty to those who are already here. Make it painless for them to register and get residency status. That would allow us to do background checks, as needed. Now the "bad guys" will, of course, avoid this, but by giving the law-abiding immigrants legal status, it becomes that much easier to root out those who might do wrong. And, by giving them legal status, it makes it less likely that they will be taken advantage of by those of our own citizens who would do them wrong. Next, I'd figure out a way to control the borders better. One way is to provide a reasonable process for entering the country. I don't know what that might be, but it would be different from whatever we're doing now, which clearly doesn't work. And lastly, figure out ways to effectively integrate them into American society, recognizing their cultural roots. You want them to learn to speak and read English effectively, but we need to recognize the time that this will take, and provide multi-lingual services. The DMVs, etc, who are trying to figure out ways to grant illegal aliens driver's licenses, etc, are really just dealing with reality. The immigrants are here, they're not going away. We might as well figure out a way to deal with it, and get the problems fixed.

Rooster, I don't think anyone here is necessarily dismissing the Bible. However, just as a discussion point, I think it's valid to discuss the idea of the Bible, or other similarly religious texts, as the basis for social policy, such as the issue of gays in Scouting. Every major Christian religion claims that their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation. They all think that their interpretation is the one that was guided by a divine hand. You have chosen a particular interpretation as your Truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. What I'd question is the BSA using a particular interpretation to develop a policy on gays while at the same time saying that they are absolutely non-sectarian in their views. I don't think you can have it both ways.

It's about time we covered up that plaque on the Statue of Liberty and replaced it with one that says "we're the richest country on earth and we want to keep it that way. Get Lost." As the mightiest and most prosperous country in the world, it IS our burden to help these people and open opportunities to them. Our country became great because of this way of doing things. Yes, INS needs to clean up its act, but that doesn't mean shutting down the borders. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I dunno, fellas. This adminstration has done a lot to take us away from the American ideal, and have taken unprecedented steps that they justify by waving the tragedy of 9/11 in our faces. Hundreds of people are being imprisoned without due process, access to attorneys, or even simple notification to their families. They want to try these people in secret courts using secret evidence and without providing them with any means of defense. Since they can't get away with torturing them anymore, they just send them off to other countries to torture them for us. They want to extend the Patriot Act to spy on honest Americans for any reason they choose, since they want to get rid of all oversight on their activities. They want billions of dollars in funds that will go unaccounted for. They've spent hundreds of billions of dollars waging war on a country, in a war we were told would be self-funding, and now we find that the reasons we were given just weren't true. (Oh, sorry, our leader declared that war over about a 1,000 U.S. military deaths ago. My mistake.....). Where's America, fellas? In the prisons in Guantanamo? In the backrooms in Washington where our leaders formulate energy policy in secret meetings with oil industry executives? In Iraq, where our soldiers die in a war that doesn't even seem to have a reason anymore? In Europe, where we walk away from treaty obligations? Maybe in space, where we work on plans to build space based weapons platforms in violation of international treaties? Heck, the man stands up and says he's found Jesus, and suddenly everything he does is golden. For the life of me, I can't imagine how we're letting this happen. If there's any administration that's NOT living the Judeo-Christian ethic, this would be the one, I think.

Well, Gern, I think it's pretty safe to say that during the Bush Administration, the GOP has pretty much lost any claim to being the part of "reason" and "fiscal self-control", no?

Thanks, tj. Interesting thoughts, and interesting website. It will hopefully start a spirited discussion. You know, of course, that this could easily become a "quote contest"; at least it'll be interesting reading Myself, I think that religions should be able to do what they want within their own walls, as long as they don't violate civil law (whether their actions are "right" is another discussion). The problem starts when they try to change civil law to reflect their own religious beliefs. So, it's fine for, say, Catholics (or whoever) to disallow gay marriage within their own group, but I don't believe that they have the right to impose that belief on everyone else. There are people who say that we need to go back to the traditional values taught in the Bible. There are others who say "be careful what you wish for". I think it's one thing to found a country that includes religious concepts as part of its principals. I think it's quite another to include rules specific to particular religious sects. I think that that's what the founders were trying to avoid. All you have to do is spin the globe around to see what happens when one religion becomes dominant in a country to the point that they control the government.

Absolutely right, OGE. Not disputing that. But I wonder if there might be a better solution for all concerned than just throwing them all out of the country. Maybe not.

Well, as much as I sympathize with the feelings here, I feel like I should maybe try to level the playing field a bit. Illegal aliens are not all arsonists, gang members, and all around thugs. The Eastern European immigrants who make up a large part of the organized crime on the East Coast and elsewhere are largely legal residents. As far as having 40 Latinos living in a single family house, I've seen reports on that, and you can thank good old American citizens for most of that problem. Groups of aliens are convinced to enter the country with the promise of good wages and good working conditions. They are then paid slave wages, put up in unacceptable housing and have no real way to escape. A large number of the aliens entering the U.S. are taking backbreaking jobs that no one wants, for less than minimum wage, and sending a good deal of that money back home to support their families. The situation in their home country is so bleak that they are willing to take the chance to come here illegally to accomplish that. A lot of the farm crops in the SouthWest wouldn't be harvested if it wasn't for the illegal immigrants who cross the border during the growing season to take those jobs. Those that are here aren't paying income taxes, to be sure, but their pay is so low that they probably wouldn't be paying anything anyway. They do, however, pay "use" and sales taxes just like everyone else, and at least some of their money goes into the local economies where they are living at the moment. If we were to grant a general amnesty today and allow them to bring their families, the net result would most likely be the addition of several million hard working people willing to take on jobs that no "American" wants, their kids would be here, learning the wonders of our democracy, and putting all their money and potentially other tax income, back into the economy. Are there problems with our immigration policies now? Sure, but calling them all gangsters and slobs isn't going to solve the problem.

Rooster, Please don't misunderstand. It's not my intent to try and crack anyone's "shield of faith"; I doubt that I could do that, anyway. Faith is a wonderful thing. I think many of the concepts in the Bible are shared across a wide variety of religious sects and their respective beliefs. It forms a warm blanket that covers them all and gives a feeling of collective well being. I won't dispute the possibility that some sort of "higher intervention" was a part of the writings that make up these faiths; it's as possible as anything else. The problems start when man gets involved, picking which writings became part of the Bible and which ones didn't, choosing how to first translate and then interpret the writings to fit the needs of their respective faiths. That was my point in quoting The Onion. Things like "Don't kill" are pretty simple, but we humans spin that all sorts of ways to fit our needs. I happen to be one that thinks that the condemnation of gays is a result of such an interpretation. That's what I believe, along with a strong belief that groups shouldn't be judged together, but rather as individuals. Satan (whoever he is) wins when he is successful in dividing us and getting us to use our beliefs against each other.

Not to pick nits, but a boy coming up to a person and saying "I think I'm a girl" isn't someone on their way to homosexuality; they really are confused. Boys are boys and girls are girls. That's a matter of "parts", not sexual persuasion. Yes, there are those who do think that way and sometimes go through a process of medically changing their sex, but I think that that's another issue than what we're talking about. Whether gays are "abnormal", "immoral", "poor role models", or whatever, is, I think, a matter of religious belief more than anything else. Like many, I've done my own search for a higher being, and while I don't know what kind of being he/she/it might be, I've come to the conclusion that he/she/it is out there, somewhere. I don't know that God is some fella with a long white beard and big Dremel tool for carving out commandments, but I don't have a problem reconciling science with the need for a higher power of some sort to "make up the rules", as it were. But, unfortunately, I've also come to the conclusion that this higher being wouldn't be all that impressed with the various groups that are doing things "in his name". There's a satirical newspaper called The Onion that did an "interview with God" a year or so ago, and one of things this "God" said was "I gave them a commandment, "Thou shalt not Kill". I didn't think it was that complicated, and yet my children can't seem to figure it out". I wonder if the Onion was really that far off. God didn't say anywhere that "gays are bad role models". We humans made that up. Sure, we justify it by quoting chapter and verse from a book that may or may not be translated and interpreted correctly. Well, there a lots of different religious groups represented in BSA, they all believe that they're way is the only way to get to "salvation", and guess what? They can't all be right. Maybe, just maybe, the views on gays isn't correct, either. With that in mind, we need some way to provide some flexibility for these different belief systems, and that's why I agree with others that some sort of "local option" may be the best answer.