packsaddle

I agree with SR540Beaver. Yesterday, this was minutes after he took the Oath, I heard comments about how missing the 12noon deadline violates the Constitution thus disqualifying Obama. I advised the individuals to run and pay a retainer to an attorney as quickly as they could. And then start writing their book - they could make millions.

"...if he wanted to" what? participate in those activities? Are you quoting me? If so I can't find those words in my posts here. Scoutldr, I apologize if I implied that weight reduction is always simple or easy. I understand that it is neither for some. And I have no sympathy whatsoever for nicotine addicts and I agree with your point about tobacco use. When I examined the medical form I noted that BSA did not include smoking as a risk factor while at the same time they restricted those who are overweight. You think maybe there are some smokers at the top levels of BSA? Would hypocrisy at that level be a shock to your intuition? But my point was a simple one. It was that exclusion from some type of outing on the basis of physical condition falls far short of being denied membership as a result of personal thoughts.

OGE, I looked at the medical form and I see your point. I note that the height/weight limits also apply to really skinny people. But it doesn't expel obese people. It only limits their activities on certain outings. I'm not sure I have a problem with this. It's not the same as being denied membership. I worked with a guy whose weight was so great that there was only one scale in a five-county area that could weigh him accurately. I had to buy a special chair that cost over $400 to keep him safe and to prevent further destruction of federal property. He lived his life as if he had no idea of the physical limitations his size placed on his abilities. Consequently, he was at great needless risk. Fortunately, when the inevitable happened, he was at home and he survived. But he didn't learn his lesson. I wasn't allowed to restrict his activities on the job because I wasn't qualified and I wasn't responsible for those decisions. However, if there had been a form and a set of restrictions like those on the medical form, he (and the rest of us) would have taken a lot less risk.

FWIW, my first reaction was that President Obama flubbed it too, not that this matters to me. So big deal, back to the original post. Yes, I agree that it contains nice words of good meaning. I'm hoping he can back all those words up with good decisions and progress for the country now that the party is over. I'll let his actions and the results speak for the guy.

Skeptic, the 'avowed' thing is unavoidable if the goal is to exclude gays. Because 'gayness' is not something that can be identified from a fingerprint or from a photo or from our SSN, the only way to detect gays is for them to be 'out' - or 'avowed'. This is not the same for obese people. Their obesity can often be determined at a glance and therefore, if such a policy of exclusion were applied to obese people, they could be excluded fairly quickly - or given, say, 6 months to slim down. Now, as I understand it, a person who decides they are an atheist is also at risk of being excluded. BUT, they might be given a chance to change their mind and 'claim' they believe in a god of some sort. Which would satisfy BSA, I think. So there are three categories of exclusion: 1) a condition that cannot be changed but can be hidden and therefore not excluded, 2) a condition that is outwardly obvious but could be changed, and 3) a condition of the mind for which any claim could be made, truth of which would be absolutely undetectable by BSA. The question is, if a gay leader claimed that he had changed and become straight, would BSA allow him back? If not, BSA is in support of the permanent and biological nature of 'gayness'. If BSA would allow him back, gays could then move to category 3. Obese people would simply have to slim down, sorry. Of course that begs the question of what constitutes obesity?

While I am not female, I think I understand. In some ways, it might be better to just get it over with than suffer a long, lingering decline. I guess it depends on what the realistic outlook is and whether or not life currently is judged to be worth continuation.

So true, Gwd. I wish him the best but I don't envy the burden he's taken on himself. But "we ain't what we was" at least.

Ahem, Stewart should give it up - he already missed it.

Beavah, it goes the other way as well. In my line of work in which there are hundreds of applicants for each position, and in which we have to WRITE letters for our graduating students as well as do the interviews for applicants who are usually graduating students from other programs, we usually do not ask for the letters for the first cut. Even at that, some faculty have to write hundreds of letters each year...all required for jobs such as those in your field. We recognize that this is reality for us. Therefore, we also recognize that many faculty simply don't have the time to write all those letters and won't. So we don't ask for the letters until we have the final ten or so applicants. There are plenty of other criteria on which to base those first cuts. Saves time and efforts for everyone. I wouldn't make the comparison to a job interview at all in order to keep the rank of Eagle as distinctive and unique as it is and to avoid further confusion. To me it is better to understand the requirements for Eagle, including the EBOR (I'm sitting in one tonight), and to do as well as we can for the boys. It isn't really that hard.

If God is indeed omniscient then I'm fairly certain he/she/it won't be fooled by the attempt to deceive by hedging in that manner. "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake."

..sputtering...Flavor Aid...it's Flavor Aid! NOT Kool Aid! I'm doin' my best to stamp out revisionist history here. Flavor Aid! Neocons drink grape Flavor Aid, not Kool Aid! It's a cheap knock-off of the real thing, like their ideologies. And about as healthy for the country. Edited to add: Answer to question about the unitary executive 'theory' - because we don't want a despot. Answer to the comment about the 'living constitution' - because it's unavoidable if we are to compete in an evolving world...an expression of honest pragmatism in politics.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Exactly the same thought went through my mind as well. It'll be interesting to find out. I'm taking that same flight next Saturday, hope he's still on the job. Different plane though. I've never liked geese much. About 10 years ago a plane I was on took a seagull on takeoff. Had to change planes after we did the emergency landing thing. Don't know what kind of seagull it was, though. I wish they all could be California gulls.

Yeah, I'd just as soon avoid the firing squad but I would kind of like someone to throw a shoe or two at me sometime, any size will do. Matzos would be OK too but they could use a little salt.

Assuming the "kool-aid" reference is to the Jonestown thing, I must note that it was FLAVOR AID, not Kool Aid. I think Merlyn is applying reductio ad absurdum to TheScout's interpretations.

Me too, Hal, I was replying to TheScout as well. Beavah, I am almost having to pinch myself, but he's not actually IN office yet. I sure hope you're right though. BTW, where have you been lately. Trying to stay warm? Around here, to keep warm we just go down to the local Assemblies church and burn a few heretics.

Dan, I agree. Moreover, over the years I've had several Rabbis attempt to explain how the Christian 'God' is not necessarily the same as the Hebrew 'God'. I admit, though, that I am unable to understand their reasoning, not that any of it really matters to me. I was thinking more about a large number of Hindus, Buddhists, and other faiths. Try these: "In Thor We Trust", nice ring to it. "In Zeuss We Trust", nah...too pretentious. "In Kama We Trust" (as in KamaSutra), mmmmmm. I guess Jimmy Swaggart, Marvin Gorman, and Jim Bakker would proclaim, "In God We Lust" . Certainly has the ring of truth... Edited to add: Gern, I'm ridiculing the superficial slogan and actions of gratuitous lust, not the faiths.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

If the people WANT the federal government to have something to do with health care or education, does the constitution prohibit this?

I think the term, 'God', is not universal, at least not in application. While Christianity is the majority religion of the world, there are sizable chunks of humanity who follow creeds that do not worship 'God' but rather some other deity(ies) or none at all. For this country the motto would better be, "InFlation We Trust", considering all the unbacked paper we're printing - and going to print. Maybe "In Ponzi We Trust" would be more appropriate.

Gern, Your comparison of PETA to LDS just might be considered mockery in itself. Your question about scouting makes me wonder if you think scout spirit places special restrictions on our actions that don't apply to non-scouts. Is this true? How so? But I answer your question in this manner. PETA intrudes into my life with their influence. And to that I answer with ridicule (or mockery, if that's what you think) because it is the best tool I can find to use. If the LDS people tried to exert similar influence, I'd ridicule their space alien beliefs and their magic underwear. But they don't. So I don't.

Heh, Heh, ASM915, My sympathies with regard to the inability of Southerners to drive on snow. Around here we cringe when we're driving in the mountains and get stuck behind someone with Florida plates, snailing their way around mountain curves and no way to pass. A lot of locals refer to them as FFPs. "xxxxxxx" Florida People. But they go away when the frost hits, kinda like Kudzu.

OGE, thanks for the clarification. But that is absolutely fascinating, the origin of the taunt! Or are you just messin' with me? I hope not because I think that's incredibly interesting. Thanks. Also, I need to correct an error I made in my previous post: fish and cats are in the same phylum, different classes. Or in the case of fish, 'schools'. Sorry, couldn't resist.

One one side, "Make 7" On the other side, "Up Yours" Or maybe just forget the first side and make it, "Up Yours, World" with a smiley face to make it OK. C'mon this is trivial, harmless stuff.

Gern, I admit that outside of this thread, I mostly ignore PETA as so far out on the distribution as not to be important. As I understand it PETA is not the prime mover for laws regarding such things as cockfighting. Those laws get general support from the public as well as more-reasonable special interest groups such as the ASPCA. For me the problem comes when people and PETA members seem to lose the distinction between humans and other animals. For example, a few of my acquaintances who are members of PETA have admitted to me that given the choice, they'd run over a person, even a child, rather than a dog. I consider that view to be obscene and I inform them of my intent to testify against them if it ever should come to that. Many of their other ideas are similarly extreme. And yes, they get a healthy dose of ridicule as a result. But I ridicule the ideas not the person, and they try to ridicule my ideas (sometimes with surprising ability) and when they make their point I do think about it. The conflict for me is based in what I consider PETA's disconnect from biological facts and the realities of life. Fish are not kittens. Completely different phyla. Their behaviors are not human. If we tend to apply anthropomorphisms, that is our problem. On religion: If a Catholic wants to believe that that little piece of cracker actually becomes human flesh when he eats it during a sacrament, I think it's weird but it seems harmless and it's OK with me for him to believe it. If he somehow tries to impose that belief on some part of my life, I will ridicule the hell out of it, pun intended. PETA does try to impose their views on my life and they'll have to take the heat as a result. But your point is well-taken about the boys. If the boys are using this kind of talk in a destructive manner, then I try to turn it to a constructive discussion. Ridicule can be used constructively but it has to involve an honest interest in engaging the ideas rather than attacking a person. I don't mind the boys questioning ideas, even poking fun at them if: 1) they maintain a sense of humor; 2)they are prepared to take the return heat, sometimes from me; 3) they are seriously trying to investigate the ideas, and; 4) if they don't get angry during the give-and-take. But I do NOT want them to ridicule a person, simply because they disagree with an idea. That is the distinction I would make.

I agree with Narraticong. Who cares? It was an empty gesture that put it there in the first place. Same thing for "under God" in the pledge. Kind of like having one of those ribbon things on the back of your car. So easy to do, so easy to feel good about it. If it pleases the superficial masses so much the better.

I think Monty Python is OK. Now, on the meaner side, I also enjoy reading H.L. Mencken. So what is wrong with 'mocking' religion...other than the fact that someone might kill you for it? Or maybe throw a shoe at you...or even PRAY for you, heaven forbid. I regularly poke fun at the 1996 rapture and the fact that the rest of us, even those born later, are left behind. I mean...if you've been left behind what's to worry about a little mockery? And also the nearby church that does the outdoor 'mock' crucifixions (at least I sure hope those things are 'mock' ones.) They'll be at it again this spring and I'll have some more fun. Am I wrong? When does poking fun or satire or ridicule become mockery? Is it a matter of perception by the recipient as in sexual harrassment? Fact is, I just spent a couple of hours helping a class to understand some scientific deceptions. We made it more humorous and fun by applying ridicule. I'm not sure we mocked anyone though..well, maybe the Pope. Is the South being mocked by the Dukes of Hazzard, or by the Beverly Hillbillies? Are we mocked by Jeff Foxworthy? Were we mocked by Oh Brother Where Art Thou or Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, etc? I admit I have thick skin. The only thing that I react to is when some yankee tries to portray a character with a Southern accent. Can't be done with anything close to authenticity. But I liked John Boy anyway, even if he doesn't know how to pronounce Kudzu.