RobK

Wow! And to think B-P thought boy scouts should form fire fighting brigades in their home towns...

At what point Bob, did I say anything about letting the boys be unsafe? I never suggested that, and you know it. I have no use at all for a .50 BMG rifle, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be fun to own and shoot, or that I can't do so safely! That's the point with the sheath knives. Let the boys who want, take their sheath knives. Let them see that it's not the right tool for the jobs they're most likely to encounter. Let them get it out of their systems -- safely!

'What concerned me most about Eagle2's post is the suggestion that the the tool be allowed not because it is the right tool for the job, but simply because it is seen as "cool" in the eyes of a scout.' What's wrong with that, Bob? Who does it hurt? We better be doing things simply because they're cool in the eyes of a scout. What's the point of sleeping in the woods? Really, what's the point of Scouting at all? Why don't we just make them come to some confrence room and take notes? Not many boys would volunteer for that, would they? Scouting worked for B-P in the first place because boys

Merlyn says regarding my assertion that HUDs nondiscrimination requirements violate BSA's religous freedom: They don't. They require everyone to follow their nondiscrimination requirements. But HUD's nondiscrimination requirements violate BSA's beliefs! You might just as well say "You need not believe in Athena, but you must attend her temple if you want to get government funds!" And HUD seems to fall within "promote the general welfare" Wow! You want it both ways, don't you? I'm simply going to quote the man who wrote the Constitution, James Madison, from Federalist 41. Pardon

No Merlyn, you've missed it completely. I think the federal government should follow the Constitution which forbids it from funding anything except the narrowly defined things outlined in it. HUD shouldn't be funding the BSA, the KKK, the ACLU, the NAACP or any other group. HUD should not exist! Private groups do a better job, and no one's toes get stepped on. BUT, if they are going to fund groups, then they should not discriminate against the BSA based on its religous/moral beliefs.

I admit the NEA comparison is far from perfect; the point was to show that the government spends our money on things each of us don't like. In your case, the BSA, in mine, artists like Maplethorpe. The beliefs of the BSA (as the BSA currently interprets them) require them to disallow homosexuals and atheists. To refuse to fund the BSA based on this is to discriminate against them because of their religous and moral beliefs. This is the problem with government leaving the narrowly defined powers given in the Constitution: If they refuse to fund based on religion they're discrimnating agai

Way to dance around the question, Merlyn! But here's another point: do you have any problem with the National Endowment for the Arts funding things like Maplethorpe's "art"? I think that stuff could be considered to discriminate against Christians. Why is that OK and funding the Boy Scouts isn't?

Merlyn, Isn't it discriminatory to require that a group not discriminate in order to receive federal funds? To my way of thinking, making requirements about what a group's beliefs or actions are to receive federal funds is unequal treatment. What the Boy Scouts are doing isn't illegal, so why should they be denied funding? I'm still wondering where the authority for doling out these grants is given in the constitution anyway... -Rob

"54.40 or Fight" coined in 1848 by US president James Polk for a Manifest Destiny movement that believed the Canada-US border should be moved north to the 54th parallel, 40th minute (ie, the present-day border of Canada and Alaska). More:

What's the harm? And I mean literally, what is the actual harm? Show them the proper tool for the job. It won't take too many instances of that big meat cleaver being a hindrance instead of a help for them to get the picture. Be quick to punish misuse, and otherwise let it go. They'll mature. Just help them learn the principle of 'the right tool for the job'. I remember being that age and wanting one of those big pig stickers. For a year or so, I carried four or five pocket knives with me everywhere because I could. I grew out of it. They will too. I think too many Scouters have lost sig

under-paid childworkers of international sweatshops... Under paid in comparison to what? Park Avenue CEOs? Or the people within ten miles of themselves? If you compare their wage against mine, sure I couldn't live on what they make, but they don't live where I do! I couldn't live on what I make if I lived in New York City or San Francisco! But I live pretty well here in central Indiana. I have relatives in southern Kentucky who live better than me on less. Those 'sweat-shops' pay up to FIVE TIMES the prevailing local wage! What else are those 'under-paid childworkers' going to do with the

I think we should stand back and get some perspective. The prisoners were humiliated and abused, but did any of them die? Were any of them permanently injured? Were any of them run, feet first and alive, through a chipper-shredder? Let the punishment fit the crime.

ASM1, I'm not sure exactly what you're protesting. But for full disclosure's sake: I drive a Chevy Blazer, and until recently I had a Chevy Tracker, which I regularly had in the mud, so I'm obviously not against the machines themselves. For ten years now I've been irritated by urban types buying SUVs to drive on city streets because they make them more expensive for people like me, who actually want them to drive off road and use them to do real work. For most people who buy SUVs, it's like buying a 24oz. framing hammer for their household hammering needs. That's their right, but that doesn't

FOG, I think you'll enjoy this site: http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html

FOG says: I'm confused why every family that got by with a medium sized sedan 20 years ago now needs a Suburban. Or even two Suburbans. Beacuse they can afford them. Compare the prices of food, gas, steel, and housing to what they were twenty years ago as a percentage of average income. Twenty years ago, they didn't have a choice about getting by with a medium sized sedan. But roll it on back 100 years. Most people got by without any motorized vehicle at all, and many without even a horse and buggy. People can afford to drive lumbering giants now and many of the people driving those lumb

Thanks Matua. You did the right thing in the right way.

Get the story first hand from the man in question. All you have now is second hand reports about what's happening. You don't know why he hasn't paid child support and you don't know for sure that he was "bragging" per se vs. simply relating the facts of the matter. I have a child from a previous marriage and I haven't ever paid child support... because I have my daughter 3 days a week, I provide her clothes, her health insurance, and her groceries, and I'm paying off the credit card bills that my ex-wife ran up. It was as much my ex's idea as it was mine. Further, we all get along great!

While Wheeler's style may leave something to be desired, he does have a point. The BSA doesn't emphasize becoming a man like it used to. Reading the latest handbook, I didn't even get the feeling that they were trying to emphasize growing into an adult that much. The older books did have a feeling of "doing these things will help you develop into the best kind of man and that's great!", while the new book has more of feel of "someday you'll be an adult, but while you're waiting here's some fun stuff." Wheeler's style of demonstrating the point may stink, but that doesn't invalidate the po

Here's a novel idea: how about we have rules against doing things that are wrong in and of themselves (eg willfully injuring someone, whether with fist, knife, or gun) and be done with the useless prior restraint rules (eg no pocket knives allowed on the premises). It is not in and of itself wrong to possess a pocket knife or gun on school property. It is always wrong to assault someone with a knife, a gun, or just your bare hands, no matter where you are! If we do this, then it's clear cut who should be punished and who should not and there is no need for "judgement" (aka selective enforcemen

firstpusk says: "North was at the center of policies that promoted torture, terrorism, assassination and mass murder." And yet Fidel Castro's Cuba is a model of education and good medical care! A murdering tyrant is lauded by the left for the few supposedly good things he does, but someone trying to do good and help the cause of freedom gets completely and utterly condemned for his mistake. Oh, I get it. It's OK for Fidel to murder and torture, because in Cuba it's not illegal for him to do so! It's legal, so it's OK! "...a former government official who participated in the hijackin

HomeScouter, here is the our troop's website with a couple of useful links. [http://www.scouttroop.org/in/bsa/307/] We are almost entirely homeschoolers.

SR540Beaver, yes, I read my own link. He was addressing classical liberalism, not the modern variety. *I* am the type of "liberal" Mussolini was against.

Bob, I've provided examples of nations falling in spite of mighty armies, and I've provided examples of relatively weak nations successfully defending against invaders through the agency of an armed populace. You on the other hand simply assert that my position is emotional and irrational without providing a logical proof of the fallacy of my position. Moreover Bob, my position is NOT that the US would instantly be overrun without an armed populace, nor that the US could never be overrun with an armed populace. But to say you need it to protect our country from the invading Huns is

FOG, armed citizens weren't even given a chance on 9/11. Guns aren't allowed on planes, remember. Bob, Rome was sacked by barbarians in spite of its army. All its people cared about were bread and circuses. You don't suppose that as those barbarians were flooding the city, the people were wishing maybe they knew something about fighting? I think it all ties together. A people who will not be responsible for their own defense, will not be defended. A people who know nothing of arms can know nothing about the proper operation of an army. Did you know about the ammo situation, Bob? Have you

OGE, that's called an analogy. OK Bob, perhaps "false dichotomy" is the wrong label, but you implied a relative importance to preparedness between a stong standing army and an armed populace, ie being prepared is 87% big army, and 13% armed populace. "Barbarians at our gates! At another time in history perhaps, in other countries less advanced, certainly" said the one Roman to the next as they went merrily on their way to the Circus Maximus, happily munching their bread. History, Bob. It happened; learn from it.