BS-87

You're assuming that I fear the kids will be turned gay. That's not the case. I realize people are born a certain way and cannot help that. People do have a choice in how they act though, and learning/teaching behaviors that are associated with homosexual culture is not acceptable for the Youth and Leaders in the Scouting movement. To your promiscuous ASM example, I think you point out a good reason many young people without families yet are not usually effective Scout Leaders. They are not mature enough yet to be an effective role model in many cases. I wouldn't disqualify a young ASM, but if he were promiscuous and it was common knowledge, I'd ask for his resignation hoping that he would realize that his lifestyle does not set a good example for the Boy Scouts. And here I didn't want it to flame up, but I knew that it wouldn't take too long for someone to get bent out of shape by what I said...

"Uhmm... can you explain what the homosexual methods of courtship, relationship progression and showing affection are? Do you mean like asking someone on a date? Going on more frequent dates, going on trips together, getting to know one's family, spending the night together? Holding hands, hugging, kissing?" Alright, I probably owe you an answer. Gay courtship is more casual, and usually more "open" with folks assuming more partners. This is even reflected in their tendency to show less jealousy in instances of infidelity. http://www.drmillslmu.com/sexdiffs/spr00/panel2.htm The process of courtship, often due to shame or ostracizing, does often not include the families to the same extent. Before someone's panties get bundled realize that I'm positive you have an exception to that common belief and I'm sure it would offend that person to hear that point of view. The final point is effeminate behaviors, personalities of many openly gay people. Again, I know there are exceptions. However, such men do not exemplify chivalry, manliness, and the tough as leather type of rugged American persona that is desired. Again, I realize there will be a thousand comments crucifying that point of view as I know I don't fill that kind of personality role model either. My point is that I do my best, and I'm not the antithesis of what we're trying to instill like an effeminate man would be. I really don't want this to erupt into flames, but I felt you deserved an answer to your question. Getting upset and railing against me, as I expect to happen, because I hold these views only shows how oppressive the pro-gay movement has become. I don't begrudge families that don't care, that's fine and let them go to a different unit. But I do care and my family won't participate in a unit with openly gay leaders.

It seems Beavah's closest to the point on this subject, as even I drifted away from the main point earlier in the argument. The main point to realize is that we need to be respectful of the moralities of everyone. All too often, those with traditional moral views that condemn homosexuality feel as though acceptance of homosexuality is being forced on them. Why is that? It's because that's the truth and the pro-gay rights crowd is aggressively and cruelly disrupting the rights of these traditional folk to set guidelines for their children as to what is morally acceptable. While I'd have my boys in a CO's Troop that did not allow openly homosexual leaders, I definitely wouldn't condemn any parents that had no problem with their boys being in a unit that accepted homosexual leaders. Comments like nugent's show that increasingly it's becoming more acceptable to oppress people for what they believe as if their moral structure steeped in centuries of tradition were all of a sudden morally reprehensible. National will probably compromise to let CO's set this membership standard for themselves or at least allow for units to take a position contradicting the default national policy.

At most, I think the fair compromise that will come from National is allowing CO's to make their own determinations for their own Units. However, that may scare off a lot of CO's who don't want that responsibility or are afraid of backlash and demonstrators/protests and other theatrics surrounding them.

Etiquette is a behavior, and your examples can and should be something other leaders correct the crude leader on. A smoker can just not smoke on campouts or near kids. A gay leader doesn't stop being gay just because he's around kids.

What kind of goofballs are on your District Committee? It sounds like you're in bizzarro-land.

Kids model their role models. Boys will try to make themselves more authoritative if they are fond of their Scoutmaster for how strict and well managed his group is. Boys will learn how to use more detail in storytelling if there is a leader they love hearing talk around the campfire. Boys also model their behavior in relationships after what they notice from their adult role models. They are always watching, learning, and adapting. An openly gay leader creates a role model who may be the great authoritarian and boys model that part of him more than anything else, but they'll also notice the relationships/behaviors of that openly gay leader and model their own actions after that. While no parent I know would chastise their son for being gay, they most certainly wouldn't prefer their son to learn how to form relationships and affections from an openly gay person. Traditional heterosexual methods of courtship, relationship progression, and methods of showing affection are preferable to homosexual. For this reason, openly gay individuals do not make the kind of role model for relationships that Boy Scouts need to become great American men and citizens.

They don't like that you're combative about program. They're kind of stupid. If I were on your District's Committee, the first thing I'd do upon hearing your ideas and grievances for Cub Scout programs is ask you to run the next event. This is in part to make sure you have a greater appreciation for the restrictions of the rules and why they're in place, but it's also highly likely that you'd run a much better program than the district has had in the past because you have a passion to make it enjoyable. I believe that's what we did in one case last year in our district. A cubmaster didn't like how we did a program, we made him chair of the program, the result is that he loves the program and last year the boys had a spectacular time as a direct result of the improvements/new ideas. I'd say you're probably rubbing them the wrong way and that friction is creating the whole problem. However, I'm positive that they're morons for not empowering you instead of blaming you and trying to put silly restrictions on you.

"I mentioned no FOS presentation this year." Were you disappointed that nobody came, or were you threatening to not allow a presentation to your unit? If you were threatening, you probably don't realize how little they care and have only become more successful in alienating yourself from the District leadership. My wife is the same way and gets uppity about people oppressing her, but doesn't realize it's because she comes off as mean and unpleasant sometimes. Have to remind her often that you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar...

Should probably drop the Catholics I hear that people say they eat babies. Also, we probably shouldn't charter through LDS churches, some evangelicals think they're a cult.

It seems you're going on the basic assumption that we need to save everyone Beavah. Trying to save everyone is a futile battle that cannot be won. So long as our communities, families, and congregations are happy and functioning, what business is the world outside of that to anyone? It's depressing to feel so out of control as we all do when looking at the national picture. However, for the part of the world we can change, like our neighborhood or city, it's actually motivating and rewarding to make changes. There's a reason I'll encourage my son to plan an Eagle project like remodeling the kids playroom at the community center. This is because we can affect change best right where we live. This is what we teach our Scouts. What's easier to make work, your unit or your Council? Can you achieve more by volunteering with your District, or by calling, emailing, and badgering National to try and change their opinion on something? You're right communities will split into homogenous groups, and they will never be completely equal. However, these communities find happiness by working together to solve problems in their community far more than they'd ever realize happiness by redistributing wealth and trying to prop up some people at the expense of others. We should know better than others that service is the best means towards happiness. I'm not sure about you, but I sure feel better about 2 hours planting trees on a Saturday than I do looking at the thousands of dollars big government has taken from me so far this year to help out other people.

Eamonn - There's a left versus right paradigm here your mind seems to be stuck in when trying to figure out where I stand on things. I'm 100% for investment in education. Turns out in Wisconsin school districts are saving hundreds of thousands and in many cases millions of dollars each in their annual budgets by having teachers pay into their packages and by going with non-union-affiliated insurance companies. That is money that is lowering property taxes and freeing revenue for investment in education instead of being tied up in compensation. When tax increases that benefit local education come up, I vote for them every time because I believe in investing locally. The same mantra can be applied to the elderly and infirm. People are far more willing to donate time, resources, and treasure to help their neighbors and family. Churches used to play a much more significant role in the community as it promoted collective charity to a much larger degree. Now there's a million federal agencies "lightening the load" of these good-hearted people and creating a rift between the haves and the have-nots. Politics are local, right? Maybe we should focus on that mantra a little more and realize we do a much better job picking people to run our communities than we do to run our nation. Let's put more power in the hands of the people most accountable to us and take power away from those who live in the mythical unethical land of Washington DC.

Where is the anti-war crowd that drummed against Bush? Why aren't they drumming against the perpetuity of these wars when the current POTUS promised to get us out of them? The answer is plainly that we're all too apt to overlook the shortcomings of someone we agree with 90% because they're much better than someone we don't agree with hardly at all. Also, Beavah, when did I suggest default? I suggested cutting back on all spending except for interest on loans, the only default-able spending. If you suggest that Social Security wouldn't get paid, then that suggests that there is no such thing as a trust fund. I keep hearing the trust fund is solvent, and so if we don't touch it right now there's no trouble, right? You're right to say that debt is good when the ROI for those investments exceeds interest on loans. However, there is no return on investment for government subsidies, war, or payoffs to campaign donors. You try to paint me as a willy nilly obstructionist who just wants to cut cut cut no matter who it hurts. The truth is that the level of waste by our government to artificially inflate our economy is creating debt. The corruption of our elected officials is rewarding them for picking winners and losers. We don't have many products anymore that compete globally. This is because our system stifles innovation. Big business lobbies for more regulation. They do this to make entrance barriers for innovative startups, and also so they can lobby for subsidies to offset the costs of the new regulations. It's absurd and it reflects a system that's completely broken. That's what the OWS folks should be protesting. Something tells me the OWS crowd could really use some educating from the Libertarian half of the Tea Party.

What's irresponsible is the level of debt our government is willing to take on for investment. It's gotten to the point now that in order to invest tax dollars back into our country, we need to take out more debt. This is simply because of the mass of debt and the growing size of our mandatory interest payments. This is not sustainable. Debt is the greatest threat to our nation, and all of us need to sacrifice and cut back now in order to make tomorrow better. Saddling future generations with mandatory spending is horribly irresponsible. It's unfortunate that since the 1930's investment and promises were made that are just today proving their unsustainability, but it's happened and we're stuck with the tough choices and hardships that our predecessors should have taken on instead of sending them down the line to us. I for one think that the issue of debt is worth a principled stance of immediate attention, whatever the consequences. There should be no compromise until the budget is balanced to show a surplus to allow for the start on the shrinking path immediately. It doesn't matter how many 3rd world countries aren't liberated by our undeclared wars because we cut our war budget and left in only enough to defend our own borders. It doesn't matter if those in desperate need of entitlement spending have to look to their churches, neighbors, and families for help instead of their federal government. It doesn't matter if cowboys don't get their poetry festival and corn-growers don't get paid to not grow corn. All that matters is getting our fiscal house in order without taking more capital out of the private sector and citizens' pockets. That's the hard line approach. There cannot be compromise in which we promise to pay Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Eamonn... It seems you're placing a little more blame with the Tea Party than is due. How exactly are they responsible for increased costs in universities, increased costs of healthcare, and making people dip into retirement savings? They're standing against more spending to avoid further indebtedness. If we continue bailing everyone out we'll end up not even making enough in a year to pay interest on our loans, let alone actually help people with our income. Through serious debt reduction and balanced budgets, we'll actually cut down the interest we need to pay annually so that someday in the future our government is actually able to use its limited budget to help people, not enslave them.

Felonious Entrepreneurship - Scouts learn the Chemistry, Recruiting, Marketing, Sales, Book-keeping, Coercing, and Management skills required to run an under-the-radar or otherwise unsavory business. Scouts will learn the intricacies of managing protection services, black market arms dealing, human-trafficking, and drug dens.

I've already provided more substantial evidence to the effect of OWS being Anti-Semitic than anyone can pull together to the effect of the Tea Party being racist. The point is not that OWS is anti-semitic, it's just that if the Tea Party deserves a racist label the OWS deserves the anti-semitic label and it would be wrong for the left-wing media to not report on instances such as these and ones played today on conservative talk radio. OWS is just another well-organized tool of the shadow hands to further divide the plebes, just like the post-Koch Tea Party. I think it's disturbing how this angry mob of Occupy protestors are content to just be angry and argue for less individual responsibility, more government control of private enterprise, and more taxation. Occupy is a serious threat to personal liberty, and that's my main problem with it.

There's more evidence to support the statement of OWS being Anti-Semitic than there is to support the accusation of the Tea Party being racist... Take a look, add that to the numerous signs claiming Jewish control of the Banks, Media, and World in general. Consider that many of these protestors are also pro-Palestine and you have a perfect storm of populist anti-semitism. The evidence may not be extremely compelling, but there's definitely more proof of the Occupy protests being anti-semitic than Tea Party rallies being racist.

Occupy Wall Street is an anti-semitic, union paid, and transparently liberal government/far-left response to the Tea Party. Looks like "the rich" are winning now that they've succeeding in pitting Americans against each other.

It sounds like at best she doesn't want to show you out of embarrassment and at worst doesn't want to show you because of embezzlement... Have the COR require her to disclose information to the Committee immediately at risk of losing her position. If that's not motivation enough then there's also the possibility for the CO to press charges... Whatever the case, something's wrong and the Committee needs to see the budget, books, and possibly receipts of all transactions/deposits for the length of her tenure as Treasurer.

Sure, why not alienate rural scouters even more! That sounds like a terrific idea! /sarcasm

BadenP - What do they say about folks who live in glass houses? CalicoPenn - I tend to disagree. "I think that's short-sighted idiocy. Instead of lowering our standards, we should be levying high tarrifs on countries that don't meet our standards. We shouldn't be thinking what's good for business is good for people. That's backwards. We need to be thinking what's good for people is what's good for business. It's a privilege to do business in a country as wealthy as ours. If business can't live with the attendant regulations, then let them go elsewhere, and tax them at high rates to import their goods back to the US." Something tells me that's the real short-sighted end of things. If you care nothing about American exceptionalism, then cap-and-trade away my red Chinese culture-warrior friend. What you're proposing is called Protectionism, and it's not the American way of doing business. In fact, with Obama perpetuating the Interventionism of the United States, a policy of Protectionism would make our foreign policy completely opposite that of what our Founders outlined of "Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none".

CalicoPenn - 10% Unemployment is not the real problem, it's indicative of the greater problem. The REAL hurt is when you include Part-Time workers wanting Full-Time work. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27039.html This makes the real employment problem effect 20% of the the working population. This means if you have 10 families with two parents living together, only 13 of the 20 will be considered in the working population, and 3 of those 13 will be unemployed or underemployed. This prospect should be terrifying. There's a marked difference between this President and previous ones who faced recessions. Other recession Presidents approached the situation with the philosophy that the business climate must be improved because businesses create jobs. This President adheres to the philosophy that business cannot be trusted, and that therefore the government must intervene to correct the business environment so more jobs can be corrected. This is faulty logic, because sustained government intervention in the private sector through numerous bailouts, choosing who fails and who is too big to fail, guaranteeing increased costs per employee through a mandated health program, and constantly threatening new and unenumerated tax hikes to what's already the highest corporate tax rate in the world, only guarantees that jobs cannot be created because the market is playing defensively against so much uncertainty instead of having a stable growth outlook. How are other markets creating job growth in this global deep recession? Ask Switzerland... and lower tax rates!

"If you don't think the Democrats are thinking about primarying, not 'marrying' PRImarying, Hillary against Obama, you're fooling yourself." -Rush Limbaugh I think Hillary would make a better candidate than Obama. Obama has capitulated time and again since he's lost the midterms. I think the Democrats are in need of some galvanizing if they have any delusions of winning.

Gary Johnson's a pretty neat guy. He's the past New Mexico governor. He's quite libertarian. Earned the nickname "Governor NO" (kind of like Ron Paul earned Dr. No) He should really be running for NM senator...