CalicoPenn

Why did the White House release it now? To embarrass a national press corps that was focusing on a stupid non-issue instead of important issues like jobs, the budget, health care, the economy. The other way of asking is why take so long - and the answer to that is to let the stupid people just keep proving just how stupid they really are - like the latest carnival barker out there. As for Cook County Board President - it's not the location where I was born that's the impediment - it's that I have way too much self respect than to want to lead that cesspoool (though I give Preckwinkle a lot of credit - so far, she seems to be making some great changes). As for Vattel's Law of Nations, the work is essentially a plagiarization of Christian Wolff's work of the same title - and that alone disqualifies any consideration of his writings, as far as I'm concerned. Further, if you want to claim that the interpretation is wrong - then go ahead and make that argument, but as of right now, President Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen based on the current interpretation - and that is the only interpretation that matters at this point. If you can find a Supreme Court that will accept your interpretation, have at it - but even this current court doesn't seem eager to change the interpretation that we operate under so good luck with that.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Collecting eggs every morning for 0.25 cents per dozen at an egg farm.

I like Skeptic's definition of natural born - it might just make me one of the few folks out there who really are eligible to be President. My birth certificate was filed in Cook County by a Kane County hospital (turns out that Cook County was commonly used as the depository of official records for the collar counties up until the 1970's) and states that I was born in Lake County. Now the only way I could have been born in Lake County is if I were born at home, or in the car on the way to the hospital. Either way, a natural birth. I particularly enjoyed President Obama's smacking down of the "carnival barkers" and the media that are paying attention to the carnival barkers instead of the important issues. I've been waiting for this "American President" moment from Obama for a long time now - I'm hoping this signifies a change in his tactics. And not to worry - the birthers still dodged a bullet. One of the arguments the birthers had was that the certificate that Obama had released prior to this didn't say it was a "Birth Certificate". Nope - never mind that Certification of Live Birth" contains the word Birth, and a derivative of Certificate in it, according to the birthers, it wasn't a "Birth Certificate". Alas, the long form that was released today states that it is a "Certificate of Live Birth". That means, of course, that the birthers, in their infinite stupidity, can still claim that just because it has the words "birth" and "certificate" in it, it isn't a birth certificate because the words are not in that exact order.

Are you sure your uncle was saying south of the border and not south of Augusta?

Schiff - did you miss the part about the alumni listing reading like a virtual who's who of Black American politics? Or how the college has powerful members of Congress behind it? If there was a powerful, deaf Representative or Senator who went to Gallaudet, you better believe there would be a line item in the budget for them. My point - it isn't in the DoED budget because the DoED put it there, it's in the budget because someone in Congress put it there.

"Could someone explain to me why the Dept of Ed. continues to partially fund Howard University as a budget line item to the tune of over $250mil annually?" Because it's one of the very few colleges that were chartered by Congress, it's located in Washington DC, it's alumni listing reads like a who's who of Black American Politics, and it has powerful friends in Congress who continue to put forth an appropriation for the school. It isn't the Dept. of Ed. that is funding the school - it is Congress - the Dept. of Ed. only administers the funds - they're Congresses pipeline of the funds to the school.

First, switchgrass is not an agricultural waste material. Corn husks, corn stalks, wheat stalks - these are agricultural waste materials. Switchgrass is a grass native to the prairies and plains of the United States that is now being planted as an agricultural crop for biofuel uses. Second, $100,000 a teaspoon is a research cost, not a production cost and should not be looked at as some kind of measurement on what the consumer cost of such a fuel will be if it were to hit the market. If gasoline were just now being developed, the research cost might be $100,000 a teaspoon too.

Until No Child Left Behind, the Department of Education was not involved in developing curriculum requirements or testing requirements and had absolutely no control of education in the states. Most people have no idea what the ED does which allows them to believe that the big bad fed is interfering with the states when that wasn't true until President Bush insisted on that stupid No Child Left Unharmed (err, Behind) legislation. The ED sets the policies, administers and coordinates the financial assistance to schools and students for such things as safe and drug free schools, federal student aid, vocational education, migrant education, special education, etc. They don't develop curriculum for any of these programs - just administer the funds. When Congress funds Pell Grants, the ED administers the program. The ED also gathers informational data on schools which Congress has requested. Such data includes things like graduation rates, drop-out rates, funding levels, etc. Finally, the ED enforces laws that Congress has passed regarding student privacy and civil rights. What intereferes with state control is No Child Left Behind. Congress should either immediately eliminate that piece of misbegotten trash or just go ahead and direct that the ED establish federal minimum curriculum standards that all states must meet and let states build on that minimum framework.

Calling Cody Banks

Scoutfish - your mother was right to renounce your mullet - you should have listened to her. BS - 87: "CalicoPenn - You're both right and wrong. We are just like those previous superpowers. You are wrong by saying that this position is not sustainable." I've got thousands of years of human history as evidence behind my statement - what have you got other than you're declarative statement that I'm wrong? Please enlighten me how I'm wrong - what is so different this time that we're going to succeed where no other civilization has ever succeeded in exceptionalism?

"By special role I mean that the United States serves as the strongest economic, military, and social welfare force in the world." At one time the Phoenicians were the strongest economic, military and social welfare force in the world. At one time the Egyptians were the strongest economic, military and social welfare force in the world. At one time the Greeks were the strongest economic, military and social welfare force in the world. At one time the Romans were the strongest economic, military and social welfare force in the world. At one time the British were the strongest economic, military and social welfare force in the world (heck - that wasn't even that long ago in terms of history - they even held that role through a significant portion of the existence of the United States). One of the things that every single one of them had in common was that they learned, the hard way, that trying to maintain that "unique" status of being the strongest economic, military and social welfare force in the world is expensive and not sustainable. God forbid we have a President who actually has a sense of history and realizes that "American Exceptionalism" is no different now than it was when it was the Phoenecians, Romans, Egyptians, Greeks or British were the folks at the top of the heap, and is trying to keep us from falling off the same darn cliff that all those other folks fell off, in the exact same way, over and over and over again during the history of civilization.

Isn't conspiracy theorism fun? No sooner is one claim debunked than 10 others pop up, and there is still a core group of people who will, beyond all logic, still believe in a debunked claim. For instance, about a year back, one Orly Taitz produced a "birth certificate" for President Obama from the "Republic of Kenya". Despite the fact that the Republic of Kenya didn't exist until 1963, which means they couldn't have issued a birth certificate for Barack Obama in 1961, there are still folks who believe this fraudulent certificate is real. Isn't it interesting how some of the GOP supporters of the "birthers" are starting to back away - rapidly? Who does Michelle Bachman think she's kidding? Isn't it interesting how some of the birthers are now starting to claim they aren't birthers because even though they believe in one portion of the birther platform, they don't believe in another? Sorry to break it to you fellows who are arguing that wondering about eligibility doesn't make you a birther. The eligibility argument comes right out of the birther handbook - you can deny it all you want but most of us will still consider you birthers. Speaking of debunking - about those birth notices in the newspapers? They were provided, in list form, by the hospital - not the family - so if we're to believe the conspiracy, we have to believe that the hospital was somehow involved in it too. The practice then, as it is now, is for hospitals to provide lists of births for the week to the local papers. It's really no different than schools providing the weeks school lunch menu to newspapers. If people bothered to check, they'd learn that the newspapers confirmed that the listings came from the hospital, not the family. Plain old common sense should tell us that the notices came from somewhere other than a family member. The notices read "Mr. & Mrs. Barack H. Obama, (home address), son, August 4". Is there anyone that truly believes a proud grandmother, or aunt, (or heck, even a taciturn but proud grandfather) would submit such a notice? If a family member had sent the notice, it would have contained the mother's first name, the name of the child (not just "son"), possibly height and weight, names of siblings (if any) and names of the grandparents. Brent - I caught the myth dogging the president bit too. I don't think it's dogging the president because there is anything behind the myth - I think it's dogging the president because the media loves to put nutjobs on television (as evidence of this statement, I offer Snooki, The Unit (or whatever he calls himself) and the rest of the Jersy Shore gang) and there is no bigger group of nutjobs in America right now than the birthers. "It sounds like the questions people have on here are well articulated and researched, not just mindnumbed sheeple opinions." I couldn't let this one go. Something may be 'well articulated and researched" but that doesn't mean it's not nonsense. Look at all the 'well articulated and researched" articles about crop circles, UFO's, Bigfoot sightings, and paranormal activity. There are entire industries out there built around this stuff that just sucks money from people who want to believe in this stuff. There's an industry around the birther movement as well - evidenced by the book that Brent has shown us will be released in about a month. Someone is going to be making money off of people for writing this book - Sheeple seems to be an appropriate word - in the sense that a bunch of folks are about to get fleeced by someone who is going to make money off the backs of the gullible.

Under English Common Law, in existence before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, and something familiar to the framers, a "Natural Born Subject" was a child born in England, including those born of alien parents, unless the child was a child of an ambassador, or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place the child was born. This same rule was in force in all English colonies, including the English colonies in this country. The Founders, being familiar with English Common Law, and knowing the above applied to the colonies, would have likely considered that everyone knew what Natural Born Citizen meant under English Common Law so they wouldn't have to define it any further. I know there are some that would argue that because it was claimed we weren't under English Common Law, that the idea couldn't have come from English Common Law - but that ignores the fact that the Founders picked and chose from amongst a number of different sources to create the Consitution, and wouldn't neccessarily discard all of English Common Law because some parts of it were bad for their situation. Parts of our Constitution come from the ideals of the Iroquois Federation, and we were never under Iroquois law either. Some would argue that under English Common Law, it was natural born subject, not citizen - but that is frankly a semantic argument about whether citizen is a replacement of subject or not. It should also be noted that English Common Law existed long before the Law of Nations treatise - and more importantly, English Common Law was enforceable, the "Law of Nations" was a book containing one man's opinion of how things should be, and not how things really are. So unless someone can prove that Hawaii wasn't a State in 1961, or that Obama's father was an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign country, or that Hawaii was occupied by a hostile force from Kenya, President Obama meets the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. As for George Washington, and all the other Presidents before Martin Van Buren (the first "natural born citizen" to become President) were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. We haven't needed that clause since, well, Martin Van Buren, so we tend to forget about it.

I'm opposed to uniform inspections as part of a camporee scoring system. Seems to me these kinds of inspections are more punitive that inspiring and I don't believe that punitive uniform inspections helps Scouts want to wear the uniform at all, much less with pride. These kinds of inspections lead to the temptation to leave Scouts behind in a campsite because they aren't in full uniform. Do we really want to penalize a patrol because Bobby, who is properly wearing a Scout shirt but is wearing blue jeans or khaki cargos because his family can't afford to buy him a pair of scout pants, and the unit doesn't have a uniform closet to outfit him up (and not every unit does have one)? As much as I would hope that the lads in the Patrol would speak up and defend Bobby, that's not how lads that age think. They're more likely to blame Bobby for them losing points because he's not wearing a full uniform. Frankly, I think a Troop from an economically depressed area all appearing in Scout shirts and neckerchiefs, and all wearing similar colored jeans or pants, even if they aren't scout issued, is showing as much, if not more, Scout Spirit than a Troop with everyone in full uniform polished to a T. Uniform inspections should be quiet affairs where we're not looking for fault but looking for ways to praise a Scout. A good Commissioner can find something good to say about every Scout - even the ones not wearing the uniform. A good uniform inspection is the Commissioner (or other leader) inspecting the lads, filling out the form, sharing something good with the Scout, not giving negative feedback to the Scout, and giving the forms to the Scoutmaster to let him follow-up on. Chances are pretty good a Scoutmaster, knowing that Bobby can't afford scout pants, will simply ignore the negative marks on the inspection form in that case.

Isn't recognizing stupid rules and working to change them part of the obedient part of the Scout law anymore? As long as they fit on the sleeve and aren't overwheming, I'd be inclined to let a Patrol wear a Patrol designed patch. Yes - I would let the patrol break that rule because cohesion among the Patrol is more important to me than whether the Patrol is wearing a 1.5" round patch. Uniforming is a Method of Scouting, it's not an Aim, and I defy anyone to rationally explain how a Patrol wearing a square Patrol emblem on their sleeve won't be instantly recognizable as Boy Scouts by someone else.

I feel the need to add: Never underestimate the warming power of a good Golden Retriever.

I also sleep on my side - and don't use a mummy bag. I've mentioned before that I don't even sleep IN the sleeping bag - rather, I use it as a blanket. First - get yourself a good pad. I use a Thermarest "self-inflating" Camper XL Deluxe. This one has two distinct sides - one is fleecelike, one is not. The fleecelike side goes up. (Don't get hung up on brand names - there are some similar pads to Thermarest - just find the best one for you). Don't use a regular old air mattress - air conducts cold very well. I'm not a fan of the ensolite type closed cell pads - especially for adults. I don't care how new they are, closed cell pads tend to compress as you lay on them. Compress a closed cell pad and you start to lose insulating ability. The only time I would use a closed cell pad is a part of a system that includes a Thermarest-style self-inflating open cell pad. Then it would go on the bottom as an extra bit of insulation from the ground. BTW - while the pad is insulating you from the ground, it is also insulating the ground from you. Not only are you trying to prevent the cold in the ground from seeping its way up to you (and at this time of year, chances are that although the ground looks fine, dig down 10 inches, and you'll find a layer of frost), you're trying to keep yourself from warming up the ground. Yep - it's a two way street - lay on the ground and you can transfer warmth in to the ground as much as the ground can transfer cold into you. Wilderness survival tip #101 - if you do have to sleep on the ground in a survival situation, build up a layer of pine boughs/leaves to sleep on first. Next - I recommend a fleece blanket - one of the cheap ones you can buy for 5 bucks at the corner Walmart/CVS/Rite-Aid. Use this as a sheet on top of the pad - you'll lay on it. Just another level of insulation - and if it's wide enough, you can fold it in half. I usually wrap my pad in it - let the fleece insulate me from the pad and the pad from the tent floor/ground. A wool blanket can work wonders - and if you're car camping, it's a great option - but they can be thick and bulky and if you have a warm enough sleeping bag, you might get too warm. I suggest another cheap fleece blanket - use as a top sheet. Then use the sleeping bag. When I do use a wool blanket, I usually skip using the sleeping bag altogether. Pendleton makes a great roll-up wool blanket with a synthetic backing - I've found that the synthetic backing can help keep cold from penetrating through wool and help the blanket hold more of my body heat. However, it's not cheap, so it may not be doable for all - in which case an Army Surplus wool blanket is the way to go. Clothing: I do wear a hat - but I'm follically challenged and need the hat to conserve heat. Some claim that 80% of your heat is lost through your head at night - how true that is, I won't attest to - however, the head is likely to be the most uncovered part of your body at night and you're going to lose more body heat through uncovered parts of the body than covered parts. If I had a full head of hair, I probably wouldn't bother with a hat - hair is an excellent insulator and a hat would just smoosh it down. I don't wear socks to bed. Most people who sleep in their socks wear the same socks they've worn all day. They may feel dry, but they're still likely to be damp from the days activity. What I will do is put a pair of wool socks under the blankets with me. If I wake up in the middle of the night with cold feet, I'll put the socks on - but I wait until cold feet wake me up. Most of the time, I can go all night without putting on socks. A lot of people wear sweatshirts and sweatpants when they first go to bed at night - it's an understandable reaction - if we're warm, we want to stay warm - so go to bed warm. Better off going to bed warm without heavy clothes on (PJs or skivvies is all that's needed), and slightly cool off while letting your body heat help warm up your blankets/sleeping bag. The blankets and sleeping bags will trap that warmth, you'll rewarm up soon enough, and the trapped warmth will then keep you warmer for a longer period of time. You may "freeze" for the first ten minutes or so, but all that means is you are warming up your sleeping bag/blanket. If you go to bed fully clothed, your body won't generate any extra heat to warm up your bag/blanket and eventually you'll wake up cold with no real way of warming back up (other than the shivering you're likely to do) and you'll never generate enough heat to warm both you and your bed up which means you'll be miserable for the rest of the night. That being said, I usually have a fleece sweatshirt and sweatpants with me, often under the blankets (if I haven't kicked them out). If I wake up cold, I can put them on. Then my problem is usually I don't want to crawl out of the warmth of my bed in the morning (if I wake up cold, it's usually about 3 in the AM or so). Don't underestimate the psychological effect of putting on wool socks and fleece clothing in the middle of the night - just doing so will make most people think they're already getting warmer. Those are my suggestions for what they're worth. Your old Coleman sleeping bags worked so well because of the flannel lining. Know what the difference is between Flannel and Fleece? Nothing, nada, zip, zilch. There is no real difference between them. I would have said flannel is natural, fleece is synthetic, except there is now some flannel cloth being made from synthetic materials. (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

On the face of it, it seems to be a violation. You're concerned (rightly) about this - now the question is "what now?". You can do as The Blancmange said and report it to the Scout Executive. Of course, this means the Unit will probably need a new Scoutmaster. You can do what some others have suggested and just not sweat it. Or you could have a nice, friendly conversation with the Scoutmaster and the Committee Chair to make sure you understand the operations and expectations of the Unit. Could the SM's son been sleeping in the back of the car and you just didn't see him? Could the SM, being followed by another car, have dropped a Scout off at home on the way in? Could there be another perfectly reasonable explanation? I think I'd have that friendly, non-accusatorial conversation to make sure my comfort level and the top leader's comfort levels meshed.

I actualy had the same thought - just register someone - then I remembered - "A Scout is Trustworthy". Then I further thought - "Best to nip this idea, even if well intentioned, in the bud now before it does permanent damage to the OA program in that chapter.". I wouldn't be surprised if there were other Scouters in the district that received that e-mail last night that have already contacted the Chapter Advisor.

Do not confront the Chapter Chief directly - remember, he is a youth member of the BSA. Instead, forward that e-mail on to the Chapter Advisor and the Lodge Advisor and ask one of them to provide you with the offical BSA Order of the Arrow Policy on elections and youth participation in chapter activities that backs up what the Chapter Chief has sent. Let them deal with the wayward Chapter Chief. If they back the Chapter Chief up, then send it on to the Scout Executive - and send a copy to National.

Hang around the forums enough and you'll learn that maybe you don't want a Scout to attend committee meetings to learn what they're like. We seem to see a lot of dysfunctionality displayed. There's no need for the SPL to attend committee meetings - the Scoutmaster should be perfectly capable of representing the PLC's and the boys interests at the Committee meetings.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

I'd be cautious about telling another parent out of the blue that they need to improve their parenting skills. It's possible they may be thinking the same thing about you.

A State Park? It may not be too late to contact the rangers and see if they have someone available to give the group a talk - the Cubs wouldn't even miss a campfire if they get to meet a Ranger.

How did we get from the PTA not sponsoring units to schools not allowing Scouts to use the schools? They're two different animals. PTAs and PTOs exist for one reason - to support the school and the kids in the school. Any fundraising they do is for the benefit of the schools, which benefits the kids. They might be helping to buy new playground or gym equipment, or books for the library, or funding a teacher institute continuing ed program. Many PTAs and PTOs have supported Cub Scout/Boy Scout units because they see it as supporting the kids. Should they choose not to recharter because of fears that if they don't maintain a vigilant eye on the leaders and the leaders do something that could threaten their own existence, I think we need to respect that. But hopefully the unit can find someone new to sponsor them - and still meet in the school. At one time, being sponsored by a PTA or PTO made it easier to get access to the schools. If a Cub Pack was sponsored by the PTA, it was a PTA program and therefore seen to be school related. Schools tended to be far more receptive to allowing school related programs and generally restricted access to only school related issues. With the passage of federal laws that took away more and more local control of access to facilities, there just isn't the need anymore for a PTA to be a middleman in gaining access to the schools.

To me, happiness is learning something new when not expecting to, like yesterday on a walk along the I&M Canal trail in Lockport, Illinois where a sign claimed that John Lane of Lockport invented the Steel Plow when "everyone" knows that John Deere invented the Steel Plow. Turns out that John Lane was using steel saw blades to clad iron plows 3 years before John Deere invented his steel plow. Considering that the distance between Lockport, Illinois and Grand Detour, Illinois is only about 90 miles, it doesn't take too much of a leap to wonder if John Deere had seen clad plows before he invented his plow. Happiness, to me, is also learning something surprising that changes your perception of the world - such as learning that in the 1800's (and to this day), Amish quilters prefer using treadle sewing machines to sew their quilts while "English" (meaning non-Amish) quilters prefer to hand sew their quilts. I would have thought it to be the other way around. And that men might be better quilters than women because women are less critical of their friends efforts.