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 thought it was cool. If the boys don't think the program is cool, there is no program. Boys like to go out in the woods and play frontiersman/pioneer/soldier/whatever. Part of that is big sheath knives! It's a game, Bob. If we're not bringing them in with what they think is cool, silly as it may be to an adult, we're not bringing them in! Those knives are the bait, along with the axes, the matches and fire, the ropes and knots, the tents, etc. Scouting better be about what boys think is cool, or else Scouting won't serve boys.

One other point I want to make: it shouldn't be the adult leadership that tells a new boy that it's silly to bring a big sheath knife. It should be the older boys. Boy led, right?

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 the length, emphasis added...

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and

collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the

debts, and provide for the common defense and general

welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited

commission to exercise every power which may be alleged

to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

No stronger proof could be given of the distress under

which these writers labor for objections, than their

stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the

Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general

expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might

have had some color for it; though it would have been

difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of

describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury,

or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of

conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms

"to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification

of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately

follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a

semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument

ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part

which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be

excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall

the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their

full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied

any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the

enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and

all others were meant to be included in the preceding general

power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use

a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a

recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of

particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general

meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and

mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the

dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection

or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the

liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Full text of Federalist 41 may be found here:

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 against religion, if they fund religous based things, they're promoting it. Ergo, the government should stop funding stuff not expressly required by the Constitution.

As to HUD being allowed to require a Nondiscrimnation agreement... It was legal for Selma to require blacks to ride at the back of the bus. Not everything that's legal is moral, not everything that's moral is legal.

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 sight of the fact that Scouting is a game. These boys aren't there to take a management trainging course. They're there to fantasy role play -- to be the big adventurer, soldier, and hero! B-P used that desire, which is so natural in boys, as the honey to draw them in and while they're not looking teach them to be fine men. Just look at the opportunity for them to have those big knives as the honey. In fact, you might contrive some situtations where those knives would be detrimental. Give them reasons other than "them's the rules" to not carry the big knives.

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 their time? Let me give you a clue - it ain't scouting or school work. They're going to sit and starve because they have nothing else!

Those who complain about under paid child workers in foreign sweat shops can have no understanding what so ever of basic economics. If there were better jobs to be had, those workers would take them. Those 'sweat shop' jobs allow those people to actually earn a living in their country, and those jobs won't stay the same forever. Look at the history of manufacturing in first world countries. As the money flows in to the area of the 'sweat shop', conditions for everyone there will improve. Life will get easier for everyone.

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 make it an intelligent choice. It's the wrong tool for the job!

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 lumbering giants are the same ones who got by with one midsize sedan twenty years ago. They didn't do it from the goodness of their hearts or as a choice to live a simpler lifestyle. They did it because it was they best they could do. Forty years from now, some folks will be amazed that we ever got by without our own personal rocket-packs, and others will gripe that forty years ago we got by without them just fine. Also, compare and contrast cell-phones. It wasn't so long ago that car phones were very expensive and only those that really "needed" them bought them. Now they're everywhere and every teenager has one.

The answer to every question like this is simply because we can.

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!

Don't jump to conclusions about this guy. I agree that it's likely he's doing the wrong thing, but get the story straight from him because you don't know first hand!

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 point.

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 enforcement) to achieve justice. Any law whose universal application is unjust is an unjust and immoral law.

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 hijacking of the government to serve an ideological crusade..."

Who do you mean, NJ? Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Hancock, Franklin...? I think your description aptly fits all of them.

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 not an argument that has any logical basis, only pure emotion.

Prove your assertion, Bob! Please prove to me that an armed populace is NEVER useful in national defense. If you prove it, I will believe it!

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 read all the reports about our depleted stores of cruise missiles? Do you know about the declining standards of physical fitness?

I see very disturbing similarities between Rome in it's decline and America today. I will not listen to the siren song of those who would have us give up our personal arms, who tell us not to worry because we live in "modern" times and no one can hurt us.

Bob, what you're really saying is that you refuse to prepare for the possibility, because you don't believe it can ever happen. I'm pretty certain myself that it won't happen in my lifetime. But if I don't prepare for it, and my children don't prepare for it, and their children don't prepare for it, then one day it will happen.

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.