DanKroh

"However, if the man were within the law, he has a right not to be harassed, regardless of how nervous it makes people."

Respectfully, I disagree. Not when the presence of the gun is coupled with a sign that all but calls for blood. And not when it potentially jeopardizes the safety of the President (and yes, I feel that way about the safety of any President).

"I just heard on TV that 83% of Americans are satisfied with their healthcare. Why don't we focus on the other 17%, instead of making 100% unhappy."

I think I'd have to see the original numbers before I believe that. A June 2009 poll by CBS and the New York Times (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBSPOLL_June09a_health_care.pdf) gave these numbers:

q50 Thinking about the country as a whole, are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of health care in this country? Would you say you are very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?

Very satisfied 14%

Somewhat satisfied 34%

Somewhat dissatisfied 30%

Very dissatisfied 18%

DK/NA 4%

It seems awfully coincidental that "Very dissatisfied" is pretty close to that 17%, but "very satisfied" is only 14%. A common method of manipulating statistics is to lump together everything that *isn't* the result you don't want.

In that same poll, 47% of Americans were "very satisfied" with the quality of their personal healthcare, but that was the same percentage, interestingly enough, that were "very dissatisfied" with the cost of that same healthcare.

On the other hand, I found this question rather compelling:

q43 Which of the following three statements comes closest to expressing your overall view of the health care system in the United States? 1) On the whole, the healthcare system works pretty well and only minor changes are necessary to make it work better, 2) There are some good things in our health care system, but fundamental changes are needed, 3) Our healthcare system has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it.

Minor changes 13%

Fundamental changes 51%

Rebuild 34%

Don't know/No answer 2%

That seems like an awful lot of people that think the current system need to be overhauled to some degree.

Ok, now that I'm not rushing out the door to pick up my son, I would like to clarify my last post.

Brent and scoutldr,

Nowhere, nowhere, have I advocated that this man's (or anyone's) second amendment rights should be abrogated. What I am saying is that there is a time and a place for displaying a firearm, and that this was not the wisest choice (yes, my word was stupid and I still stand behind that, too). There is a difference between the law and good judgement, and one does not replace the other.

Personally, I do not care for guns, even though I learned how to fire one and at one time was recruited for my college's pistol team. But I do not understand the need to own and brandish one. However, again, nowhere and never have I advocated for anyone to have theirs taken away. But according to Brent, that makes me "intolerant".

I have had a loaded gun pointed at me by someone with malicious intent. I have stared down the barrel of a loaded gun being held by someone whose mental stability I had very good reason to question. I have stepped in front of someone who was likewise having the same gun pointed at her to protect her, out of love. Let me add that at the time this happened, I was 10 years old. So no, I don't happen to like guns. When you've had a similar experience, gentlemen, get back to me, and we can talk.

scoutldr, furthermore, I do not appreciate the constitutional gotcha questions, just because I do not agree with you about gun laws. I made a call for a more peaceful, civil discourse (from all sides, notice nowhere did I say anything about ideology), and was attacked for it, and all but accused of all sorts of "unAmerican" things. Gee, no wonder we can't have a civilized debate in this country right now.

Brent, as I said before, my son gave up the "they did it first" excuse for bad behavior when he was 4. It is no more persuasive when coming from an adult. There are extremists on both sides of the spectrum, and both need to be reined in, not fomented on by misinformation and ad hominem tactics. Which will you do?

"I'm sure there were plenty of police and Secret Service officers there, carrying guns as well. I'm guessing that didn't bother you. They carry because it is part of their job. Well, which is more important/ sacred to you - a job requirement or a right?"

Secret Service, nope, can't say I'm afraid of their guns, because I have some reasonable assurance about their stability. This guy, not so much. Especially given the level of ideologically motivated violence lately.

"But are you advocating the suspension of a Constitutional right as a condition of being allowed your right to petition your Government and to debate your elected official's actions?"

Is anyone going to say he can't own a gun if he wants to be in the same place as the president? I don't think so. However, last time I checked, yes, anyone who wants to be in the same vicinity as the President, has to leave the firearm elsewhere. Nice spin on the gotcha question, though.

Not interested in a debate of the 2nd amendment. Done here.

"So much for tolerance... "

All righty then.

scoutldr, I really don't want to get side tracked by a discussion of constitutional rights, or GITMO. I didn't say that what the guy did should be illegal, I said I though it was wrong, and I still do, for the exact same reasons I gave Brent. Because the situation is volatile enough without someone increasing the stakes of someone doing something monumentally stupid.

I don't happen to agree with NH's "open carry" law, never have. Which is one of the reasons I don't live in NH.

Brent, my problem with it (combined with the sign he was carrying) was the not-so-subtle threat of violence. My problem with it is that you don't bring a loaded weapon to an event that you know is going to be contentious, highly charged, with the potential to turn nasty, without the implication that you are willing to use it.

Now answer my question, sir: What exactly did bringing that gun add to the debate on health care reform?

"That's not restricted to Christians."

No, it's not.

"So which of the other Constitutional rights should we make "optional" if they don't seem "right" to someone? Speech? Assembly? Religion? Once you open that box, it will be VERY hard to close again."

How about habeas corpus? Oh wait....

Why do so many Christians assume that those of us who aren't are only so because we don't know better?

Have you given Lugh the same courtesy?

scoutldr, they guy in NH who brought the gun to a presidential event was within the law. However, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. What exactly was he hoping to accomplish? He certainly made an impression, especially the gun display coupled with the sign he was carrying, gave off a certain message, one of implied violent intent.

So one has to ask, what exactly did bringing that gun add to the debate?

"These are scary times."

Ok, now I am beginning to agree with this statement. When there are two incidents in as many days of protestors bringing guns to town hall meetings on health care reform (one as a concealed weapon, or at least, it was concealed until it fell out of the person's pocket), then I agree we have entered scary times, indeed. The other brazenly displayed his weapon along with a sign about watering the tree of liberty with blood, outside of a venue where the President was due to appear.

Can we now agree that it is time to ratchet down the violent, divisive rhetoric in this country, or do we have to wait until an innocent bystander gets shot?

If you have the equivalent of a Dollar Store, I'd try there. You can usually get colored rope in fairly small quantities (as opposed to the humungo lengths at the hardware store). You don't really need pieces bigger than about 12 inches each.

Vol_scouter and Hal,

Nicely said, gentlemen. Hear, hear.

Vol_scouter, I spend some time while pursuing my Psy.D. doing work with sex offenders. Unfortunately, while a very interesting field, it was not to my liking for personal reasons. I have some personal observations from that time, but it is completely anecdotal and I have nothing published to back it up. Let me just say that I truly feel just as comfortable sending my sons off to spend time alone with their gay, married godfathers as I do with their heterosexual aunts and uncles.

"She's clearly connecting the demonstrators with Nazis or skinheads."

Sorry, Kahuna, but that wasn't my interpretation at all. To me, she was clearly unhappy with the demonstrators trying to connect health care reform to fascism/nazism, and Obama to Hitler.

You say tomayto, I say tomahto.

"You and the media would, correctly along with myself, gone ballistic. Asking people to send their recounts of casual conversations, emails, et cetera is the same things that Stalin and others have done. What will be done with the emails? Will the people originating the offending opinions be effected? Will their names be kept? Remember, political speech is the most important speech to be protected for good reasons. This will have a chilling effect on free speech. This is wrong!!!!"

vol-scouter, thanks, but I was busy enough being horrified over the Patriot Act and Gitmo. I didn't see the blog asking anyone to send in names. Btw, you don't think the DHS has a "snitch" email? I saw a blog asking for misinformation (i.e. "I read that HR 3200 would provide manditory insurance from green skinned aliens from Andromeda, is that true?"), not dissent. Perhaps I am just not as naturally paranoid as some. However, I do remember saying I thought it was a bad idea.

And I guess we have forgotten that during the previous administration, dissenters and protestors were quarantined away from Presidential eyes, and arrested if they dared leave the "free-speech zones"? Where was the outrage over that? However, I've never been a big fan of excusing bad behavior because someone else did it first. My son gave up that tactic in preschool, when he was 4 years old.

BTW, again, perhaps you don't read the same sources as I do, but I have seen plenty of criticism for Obama over not having repealed the Patriot Act yet, but I believe most people are for the moment appeased by the idea that he will simply let it expire at the end of this year (at least, that was the last I heard of it, does anyone have more recent info on the renewal?).

Sorry, but I don't drink the Kool Aid, no matter which party is handing it out.

"I cannot remember a president asking Americans to turn each other in to the White House over their political views. These are scary times. "

Just to inject a few facts, here is what the White House blog actually says about the flag@whitehouse.gov email address:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we cant keep track of all of them here at the White House, were asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

So, as you can see, they are not asking anyone to "snitch" people out. They are asking for misinformation to be sent, so that they know what areas are being misinterpreted (either deliberately or out of ignorance).

Now before anyone starts throwing around accusations, I think that whole thing has been a misstep by the White House, a bad idea. But the hysteria of certain figures in the media is certainly not helping the situation.

scoutldr, I am in the process of working my way through the document, it is certainly not easy reading for anyone who doesn't speak legalese. However, I do have to wonder what percentage of the protestors have actually read the entire document.

Personally, I already have questions that I would like to have a chance to ask at a "town meeting", but it seems my chances of being able to actually ask a question in such a setting is rapidly approach zero.

Brent, actually, yes I did miss it.

Is there some reason I shouldn't have? Or is there some reason that I deserved your special shout out? Before this thread started, I had somehow happily missed this entire issue. I haven't entirely plugged back into the world since returning from summer camp.

However, from reports I've seen while catching up on news today, it does appear that being disruptive and shouting down speakers definitely is the new fad at town meetings.

Personally, though, I'd just characterize such behavior as extremely rude.

Kahuna, do you have a link to the text where she made that implication? I haven't been able to find it.

I watched the video of her comments, which were:

"I think they're Astroturf... You be the judge. "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

Given that I have seen a lot of accusations of socialism and fascism tied to Obama, and a lot of Hitler/Nazi imagery associated with Obama by right-wing extremists, I assume she meant that she thought it was inappropriate for them to be making those associations at that place and time. Sorry, but I just don't get that she was calling the demonstrators Nazis or skinheads.

Unless there was more to her statement than was was on the video I saw, which I quoted above.

On the other hand, I have now read transcripts (from his own website) where Rush pretty directly compared Democrats (and liberals) to Nazis, and Obama to Hitler.

Ok, thanks Kahuna, what I missed was Pelosi's implication that the demonstrators were themselves skinheads. Now it makes more sense.

Kahuna, I'm a little confused, since I haven't been following this story (and never, ever listen to Rush, although I have read some "interesting" transcripts), but when I went to the link you posted, there were two pictures there, one of a person holding a sign with a swastika, and another of a person with an pair of SS symbols on it. Were these not the photos that Pelosi was referencing?

I have no love for Pelosi, but I have also read reports of swastikas and nazi imagery showing up at health care town meetings.

"Dan, you are so very dismissive of this subject that you are frightening me!"

I'm not sure what "this subject" is; if you are speaking of the problems that plague homosexuals, I am anything but dismissive, since it is my life's work. What I *am* dismissive of, Mr. Boyce, are citations from sources of propaganda, like the Traditional Values Coalition and NARTH, which are the only sources you have cited here so far. When you throw out pejorative and derogatory statements, I'm going to call you on them. That's not being dismissive, it's being intellectually honest.

"Here are sources:

National Coalitions of Antiviolence Programs

Knight-Ridder

Journal of Men's Studies

International Journal of Epidemiology

University of Chicago research

Centers for Disease Control

Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes

Midwest AIDS Prevention Project

British Journal of Psychiatry

I would say that these many sources should strongly suggest that we take a serious look into this topic, and not wave it off, even if it makes us uncomfortable due to our political sympathies."

Again, sources of what? You have not cited them as being the sources for any of the "facts" you have been espousing. I am quite well versed on HIV and AIDS statistics. I am quite well versed on the unhealthy behaviors that are rampant in the homosexual community (but do not try to attribute them to some inherent flaw of homosexuals), as I said, dealing with them is the focus of my professional career. However, that's not what you have been trying to discuss. You and others have been trying to use these statistics to establish that homosexuality is "an unhealthy lifestyle". A sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. And the unhealthy behaviors that some homosexuals engage in make them no less moral or worthy of respect or good role models than the unhealthy behaviors that some heterosexuals engage in.

I'm simply trying to stop some people from seeing them as one big group of boogeymen (and boogeywomen?) and to see them as individuals who are just as fallible as *human beings* as any other human being.

Can't get the edit button to work, but I made a typo, it should read:

"Are there homosexuals who engage in inappropriate relationships? Yes, a very small minority, just as there are a very small minority of heterosexuals (men and women) who engage in inappropriate relationships with teenagers of the opposite gender."

scoutldr, unfortunately, I think any attempt to reclaim the swastika from it's infamy is doomed to failure. It's unfortunate for the religions that it was stolen from, and it's unfortunate for B-P and his "thanks badge". Some things are just a little too drenched in blood to ever been seen in a different context.

"So for a reasonably fit black scouter, they are not setting a bad example. HPV rates are related to the number of sexual partners so if the inference is scouters having sex with multiple partners - that has been covered in other discussions here and I don't wish to go into that area myself at this time."

So, for blacks and women, you are willing to qualify that if they, as individuals, do not engage in the unhealthy lifestyles that are rampant in within their groups, then it would be ok for them to be scouters. Yet, you are not willing to extend that same courtesy to homosexuals who do not engage in unhealthy behaviors.

Right. Got it.

You can tout your compassion as a physician all you want. I'm glad you are able to separate your personal feelings from your professional duties. But when you say things like "homosexuals lead unhealthy lifestyles", "significant risk for homosexuals to molest youth", and "homosexuality is a sin", your intention may not be to demonize them, but that is exactly what you are doing. You are pre-judging every last one of them based on your religion-dictated precepts. Hmmm... isn't there a word for that?

"So ephebophiles are heterosexual and they are the ones who are having non-consensual sex whereas if it is consensual it is homosexual. In other words, the male homosexuals only do good things with youth but the bad heterosexuals do bad things. That is semantics and nonsense. You can't have it both ways. If someone is having sex with the same sex, the relationship is homosexual. If it is opposite, then heterosexual and for both it is bisexual."

So men who have consensual sex with teenage girls are happy, well-adjusted heterosexuals, and that relationship with a teenage girl is equivalent (in their minds) to a relationship that they might have with an adult woman? Because that's what you are saying about homosexuals. Are there homosexuals who engage in inappropriate relationships? Yes, a very small minority, just as there are a very small minority of homosexuals (men and women) who engage in inappropriate relationships with teenagers of the opposite gender. Does that mean that all (or a majority of) heterosexuals have the potential to have inappropriate relationships with teenagers? You'll have to tell me if you have statistics on that, can't say I've ever felt the urge. And yet, we allow female leaders in Boy Scouting. And yet, we allow leaders of both genders as leaders in Venturing. But can't let the big scary homosexuals be leaders in Scouting because they might lead an otherwise completely heterosexual teenage boy into consensual sex (also know as "catching the gay").

All righty then. Yes, you obviously read different studies than I do.

"It was not made up by Cameron whoever he is. So sorry, it is you who are wrong."

I guess my statement was not clear. I didn't say that Cameron made it up. I believe the term was actually coined by Kazal in 1976. However, it is Cameron's legacy because he popularized it in the mainstream in the late 1980's and made it a popular urban myth and rallying cry among the anti-gay activists.

(edited to address the "whoever he is"; SPLC has devoted an entire "Intelligence Report" to him: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=587)

"It is not a fallacy that many (most) homosexuals have an unhealthy lifestyle."

No, that is a subjective opinion. Which is not supported by unbiased scientific evidence. Bias comes in many forms, and it is not always intentional or politically based, but is still bias and affects the quality of the study and how it should be interpreted.

But you say that your opinion about their health is not the basis for your support of their ban from scouting. Those issues are:

1. Youth protection - has been debunked over and over and over again, ad infinitum ad nauseum. Again with the semantics. Ephebophiles (which are the ones who would be abusing youth in the 11-18 range) are also vastly predominantly self-identified as heterosexuals (with wives and children, yada yada), and are NOT the the same people engaged in consentual same-sex relationships between adults that we commonly call "homosexual".

2. Your religion - well, many religions, including an increasing number of sects within Christianity, have no problem with it. In Massachusetts, gay couples are even married and many of them have families (so you can't use the "non-marital relationship"). Why does your religious belief get to trump those of others?

So if blacks have an HIV infection rate 7x higher than whites in this country (not to mention heart disease, hypertension, sickle cell disease, etc), why do you not generalize their lifestyle as unhealthy? Since 8 in 10 women will contract HPV sometime in their lives, why is their lifestyle not unhealthy? Why the double standard?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)