scoutingagain

Well there is no national ban preventing convicted child molesters, murders or or other convicted felons from being adult members in the BSA. A local CO and Council would have the option of granting membership, unless of course they happen to be an avowed homosexual. The BSA has explicitly stated that avowed homosexuals do not represent the kind of moral example they want in their adult leaders. All other categories are accepted or denied membership based on the discretion of the local CO and Council. Now I highly doubt a CO or Council would accept a heterosexual child molester, but there is no national ban against it that I'm aware of. So if one was a gay parent, why would they choose to enroll their child in an organization that considers them to be so immoral that they are banned from membership at the national level, unlike any other category of alleged sinner. SA SA

Basement, Not waving our moral standard at all, just pointing out the spectrum of acceptance of sexual morality. Yes, if one travels 10 - 15 miles north of the city one can find a Hooters. The only one in Mass that I know of, not that I'm searching them out . The Hooters is on the same stretch of Rt. 1 where the traditional exotic dance emporiums are. It is not an establishment that would be accepted on main street. Yet as I pointed out, in my travels in the south, they seem to be as accepted as a Howard Johnson's would be. The kind of general acceptance of what some would consider an immoral establishment that Barry refers to. I personally don't have a strong opinion either way. So Hooters and Tilted Kilts are considered inappropriate for family fair, yet in Mass we also recognize the legal marriage of two people of the same gender. So are we morally superiour or headed down the road of decandant decay as some are so concerned about? SA

""The republican party itself may not be a racist organization, but it is #1 with racists" Well maybe for white racists, but I doubt that's true for black racists. SA

"Tilted Kilts are better than Hooters by far.... " And one of those was just rejected locally as well as not fitting into the moral character of the community. SA

I'll just toss this little nugget out that for all our supposed liberal morality up here in Beantown, about the only establishment more difficult to get a permit for than a Chick-fil-a would be a permit for a Hooters. Yet when travelling in the south on several occaisions and joining colleages after work for a refreshment at such an establishment you'd think you were going to a Howard Johnson's based on the number of couples and families there. They have good wings. SA

Kahuna has a point there Beav. I suspect your using some old fashioned notion of what a moderate or conservative is. Keep in mind Reagan would be kicked out of the current Republican Party for being too liberal. If what once was considered moderate was the 50 yard line, it's now probably on the Democratic 20 yard line on the old scale and the current Republican philosophy of no new revenues, etc. the conservatives have moved to the right past the end zone. SA

"But the best tactic to convince the independed voter is to derise the opponent and not present their own plan? " Unfortunately yes and we have no one to blame but ourselves. Over the last few election cycles voters have demonstrated that negative campaigns work. As far as presenting plans or ideas go, if you don't present one it can't be criticized. SA

Have to agree that just throwing out labels does little for thoughtful debate. I might edit the above to include," Calling your opponent a communist, socialist, racist or a nazi only serves to divert the conversation away from the real issues." It used to be that if a politician or party was caught in an outright lie or is now called "mispoken" they'd be extremely embarrassed at a minimum. Now it just considered normal politics to out and out just lie about one's own position or policies and that of the opponent. I've come to the conclusion that: 1. Anything stated in an add put out by a PAC is probably a lie. 2. Anything stated in an add put out by the candidate is probably a lie. 3. Anything stated in a party website is probably a lie. So what's a voter to do? Compare one party's lies to the other party's lies to make an informed decision? I don't know what the answer is, but there needs to be a better way to hold campaign statements to the truth. Simply having the media point out that a statement is untrue doesn't work anymore. No one trusts the media either. At what point does calling someone a socialist or racist with no evidence become slander? At what point does leaking untrue myth's about your opponents family life become illegal? Under the current system wealthy individuals, and PACs and now even major party candidates seem to be able to say anything with absolutely no accountability for truthfulness. SA

I'll throw this in with respect to driving. One of the biggest issues in corporate fleet driver safety programs is the issue of cells phone. More and more companies are simply banning the use cell phones while driving on company business, no hands free either. Something to consider. SA

Have to agree with Beav. I can't remember a presidential campaign base so much misinformation from both sides. It used to be if a candidate was called out for some of the blatant lies told by both sides in this campaign they would be humiliated out of the race. Now it's seen a politics as usual. Sa

Suspect the Council SE got a call from National informing him they've been on double secret probation the last 10 years and they need to revise thier policy. SA

"So are we dealing with the very vocal minority??? " I'd have to say so, yes. Polls pretty consistently show the country is pretty well split nearly 50/50 on the issue of gay marriage, with more recent polls showing a gradual trend toward acceptance. Yet, every time it's makes it to the ballot, voters have so far rejected the legality of the concept. This is mainly because at best, maybe 60% of eligible voters actually excercise their right to do so. In this case, 50.1% of that 60%, or 30.5% of all voters can decide an issue,(or decide who gets elected.) So, even though a plurlity of the population, maybe even a majority hold an opinion, only 30.5% actually decide. That vocal minority is not the "liberal" media, or the 2-4% of the population that might be gay, or the 49 - 51% that might accept gay marriage, it's the 30.5% that shows up to vote. That's the civic lesson in all this. SA

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I'd have to say being able to marry the one you love falls under the pursuit of happiness clause. I might add the guys that wrote this were hardly the type to simply disagree with the rules and try and work within the system to change them. The were radicals that openly defied authority. Hardly the type to hold out as examples of civility to our scouts. I know this comment crosses threads. SA

I frankly have come to believe, "Not for profit", has come to mean, "Take in as much revenue as possible, pay managing executives as much as possible so as not to be profitable and not pay taxes." This concept seems to apply to many not for profit organizations, not just the BSA. SA

"Then for some reason,..." LOL, I suspect some of the the bean counters in Irving would fit right in with those at some of the big financial institutions or Enron. SA

At the risk of driving the thread off course, I'll just note the banks were never forced into Chapter 11 the way the auto companies were. SA

The Northern Star Council has apparently had an inclusive membership policy for the better part of a decade. How many LDS and Catholic COs have left that council? SA

My post was in response to Beav's posting earlier in this thread. I understand we're crossing topics, Just wanted to let the Beav know. SA

"My question is, where is da liberal version of John McCain, stepping forward to take his fellow Democrat to task for a response and position which is utterly shameful? " The Boston Globe, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, ran an editorial today taking the Mayor to task for his position. May not get the national publicity Mr. McCain and Ms. Bachman get. SA

Since scouting is admittedly non-sectarian with respect to it's outlook on religious beliefs, if we ban one behavior that is considered immoral based on religious doctrine we must ban all immoral behavior based on all faiths. So we must ban; Divorcees Anyone that has had sex before marriage Anyone who has has sex using birth control Since it is the thought that counts, anyone who has had impure thoughts glancing at the bikini adds on Scouter. Gamblers, including anyone that has wagered using lottery tickets, played pool or put money up on a golf round. Anyone that eats pork That's just for starters, but at least then the BSA would be consistent in it's application of moral standards for leadership. SA

Inclusiveness is coming not because there will be a great change of moral leadership in Irving, but it will come for the same reason so many businesses have gay friendly policies. i.e. non-discrimination, benefits for same sex partners etc. These businesses are not moral crudaders, they are simply business that want to serve the broadest possible customer base. BSA will allow local option to have their cake and eat it too. They will likely even remove themselves from the policy decision by making local option an option for individual councils to make. My guess would be within 6 years or so. And as I mentioned in another thread. It will happen with no great fanfare. Councils such as the Northern Star Council will simply adopt their own membership standards. Northern Star has apparently had their own membership standards for the better part of a decade and no one has seen fit to tell them they can't have it. It's still up on their website so we'll see. SA

The only candidate getting more donations from Wall Street institutions than Barack Obama is Mitt Romney. Face it. Both major parties have been bought by special interests. The Citzen's United case has been a disaster for representative democracy. Wall Street owns both parties. Hence 4-5 years after the big bank bailouts that Bush II initiated there is no effective regulation or risk management in place to prevent them from doing the same risky investments they did to threaten the system in the first place. Big Labor and Entertainment own the Democrats. Oil and Defense own the Republicans. Which is why candidates like Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman that gore all the special interests get no traction. Until there is a break in the two party system, our best bet maybe a do nothing government rather than letting one extreme or the other actually get enough seats do implement their legislation. We need a multi-party system where no one party has enough clout to get anything done unless they are willing to form a coalition and compromise with at least one other party. The whole point of a contested legislative system is that negotiation and compromise more often produce better solutions than the extemes. SA

From a recent article on those making > $250K. Jon Bakija, an economist at Williams College in Massachusetts, has used tax-return data from 2005 to compile occupational breakdowns for the top 0.1 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent of taxpayers. "As you go up higher in the income scale, you get a larger share of executives and finance people," he said. Professional Concentration Engineers, architects and information-technology workers make up 9.6 percent of the top 5 percent of taxpayers and 4.2 percent of the top 1 percent of taxpayers, Bakija said. The top 5 percent includes managers, financial professionals, lawyers and medical professionals, though all in lower concentrations than in the top 1 percent. U.S. households in the top 5 percent are more likely to have two spouses working than those in the top 1 percent. Of that top 5 percent, 23 percent have spouses who don't work outside the home, compared with 31.6 percent of the highest 1 percent and 39.3 percent of the top 0.1 percent. "What you have is a growth in two-earner couples at one end of the income scale," said Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation in Washington, which favors a simpler tax code with fewer targeted breaks. "You have this huge cohort of people reaching their peak earnings potential." Geographically, the taxpayers in the 2 percent group are concentrated in high-income states along the coasts. In Connecticut, 3.6 percent of households would pay higher taxes under Obama's plan, more than triple the 1.1 percent in Ohio and the 1 percent in Idaho, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a Washington group that favors raising taxes for top earners. Greatest Concentrations After Connecticut, the greatest concentrations of households that would be subject to higher rates are in New Jersey , Massachusetts and New York, at 3.2 percent, 2.8 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively. The District of Columbia tops all of them at 4 percent. Mississippi and West Virginia occupy the bottom of the list, with fewer than 1 percent of households in their states facing the proposed tax increase. " SA

I'll admit I'm not a big fan of Mr. Romney but I have to disagree with this, "Dont look at my time as governor (where he failed)". Romney was an effective chief executive. He significantly increased state revenues and balanced the budget while maintaining essential state services. He passed and signed into law Romneycare which led Massachusetts to having some 98% of our citizens covered by some type of healthcare insurance and those that aren' pay an additional tax to pay into they system. This has eliminated much of the medical free loading. By more than a 2:1 margin Massachusetts citizens support our current healthcare system modeled on the Republican approach to Health care. This was Romney's signature achievment as Govornor, that and raising state revenues to balance the budget without significantly cutting services. The real question for Republicans is why is this guy on the ticket? SA

I saw the article and had similar thought. Glad McCain found his backbone again. Hope he keeps it. We need more like him in government. If he hadn't missplaced it in 2008 I might of voted for him. SA