Voting With Your Feet

I feel his pain. I am making plans to return to MA someday, but sometimes I wonder.

http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/a-letter-from-a-military-vet-to-the-state-of-ny

Unrestrained by Law or Constitution: Geek Edition

To fully experience this post, explore the imbedded links.

This post came out of nowhere. I have been watching G. I. Joe Renegades with the daughter and we did watch an episode with the Crimson Twins. Maybe that has something to do with it? I don’t know, it’s all so confusing. I think I might have skipped too many doses of Prozium.

Here goes.

Tyrant: A ruler unrestrained by law or constitution.

President (United States of America): An elected official who leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.

(Disclaimer: I am not a mathematician nor have I ever played one on TV)

T+P=TP?

(Disclaimer: I am not a constitutional lawyer nor have I ever played one on TV)

We are a nation of laws governed by a constitution, and our current President studied and taught constitutional law, so I think we have nothing to worry about. I am sure he has great depths of understanding on these things. And as he reminds us often, this is the most transparent administration ever. Plus, don’t we have protections built in to our constitution protecting us against this sort of thing? Maybe I would understand it better if I had studied constitutional law. Or maybe I understand it better because I have not studied constitutional law. Red pill. Blue pill. Ahhh, I just don’t know.

Hey! Are you going to watch the Oscars?

Laziness is Easy and Compounding

Well, readers, if there still are any of you left after such a great start, and then a short absence that has grown into a little bit of a long absence. I guess I really don’t have too much to say or talk about lately. I think that being upset about one thing or another is a full time feeling, and our government and world gives us plenty to feed those feelings. But wanting to write about it, or the need to vent about it, is a cyclical thing. I guess I am in a lull or ebb. So, what I am going to propose for myself, or what I am going to try to is, post something. If not a massive monologue at least a note or a link to a story I have read and maybe a little of why I liked it or why it drove me crazy, and if not that, at least an interesting word or something from wiki. So, let’s start today off right. Here is a link from wiki. Or as some of us from a certain generation might want to call “the word of the day.”

The word of the day for today is “Oligarchy.” When you hear or read this word what comes to mind? When you read the definition of this word what comes to mind? Enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

Drones, Targets, Collateral Damage and American Citizens

I wrote a 1,000+ word monologue with multiple tangents and when I started editing it, I changed my mind and hit delete. Here is the bottom line. Kind of.

1. There was a leaked memo pertaining to President Obamas justification for killing American citizens with drones abroad. A group of Senators also have some questions for the President on this subject. Let’s see if the state sponsored media has any questions on this subject.

1A. President Obama is a constitutional lawyer (I am assuming the Constitution of the United States) and a Nobel Peace Laureate.

2. A drone firing a Hellfire missile is not a sniper rifle. It is not surgical, it is messy. When a drone launches a Hellfire missile and that missile hits a target there is massive destruction. Humans, both good and bad are killed. Young humans, also referred to as children are killed during these strikes. Not to mention innocent full grown humans, both male and female. The killed children and innocents are known as collateral damage.

2A. President Obama wants to restrict the second amendment rights of all law abiding Americans to “even save one child,” which none of his proposals will do. As for saving even one child, that only pertains to children located in the United States, killed by criminals. Not those killed in other countries under his orders. Maybe he sees the loss and or further restriction of our rights to also be collateral damage. (micro tangent)

3. We have thousands upon thousands of convicted bad guys in our prisons. Murderers, rapists and pedophiles, legitimate bad dudes. We have a prison overpopulation problem. The legal system that puts these bad guys in prison and the prison systems to house these bad guys, costs us bazillions every year. Just to keep bad guys as pets. There is no rehabilitation occurring.

3A. The cost of an armed drone and its operation is not cheap. It is not cheap in dollars and not cheap in the cost of ill will towards America for reigning terror from the sky.

3B. A single round of 45 ACP to the head would solve our prison overpopulation problem, for under a dollar each, even at an inflated government cost. It would most likely be incredibly effective in deterring crime as well. This idea is completely rational and most likely legal if you consider it though an Obama legal lens.

Read or don’t read the articles I have linked below. But at least do this for me. Ask yourself what you are and are not ok with and why, pertaining to drone strikes and the killing of American citizens and the killing of innocents. I am not ok with this. We have laws and rights, and even if we didn’t this wouldn’t be legal. We know what is right and what is wrong. This is not legal, and this is not right. I could go on and on, I shouldn’t, so I won’t.

I think the founding fathers just shit themselves, in their graves.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/02/senators-ask-obama-for-legal-opinions-oking-drone-156084.html

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/the-fine-print-in-the-presidents-license

Genius or Laziness: When Someone Can Speak Better Than You On A Subject, You Let Them

Keeping it short and sweet today. Mr. Keene of the NRA does a great job speaking to many points that are germane to the current gun discussion. I will let him speak for himself and for me. A well spent 30 minutes (video).

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/03/leaders-with-ginni-thomas-nra-president-david-keene/

Here are a few others (articles).

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/10/guns-and-freedom

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/23/look-whos-mocking-fascist-fear-mongering

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/why_we_have_guns.html

And a few more (articles).

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/gun_control_a_failed_american_experiment.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/trusting_your_own_government_--_or_not.html

Quinoa Eating Jerks!

I am not in the mood to write some long, and tangent-ing monologue like I did last night. So tonight I will keep it short. If you eat quinoa, as I do, you may or may not have known that you are a jerk. A globally unconscious jerk. Here is an article from grist.org. It is a progressive and ecologically minded site. What is that? You need a more detailed description, OK. Let’s just say, they give a pass to Democrats every now and then, but never to Republicans. Still need more? OK. They hate the man, but only when the man ends in .com, those ending in .edu or .gov are either cool or necessary evils to fight the .com man. More? They would never be late for an Occupy party, and would organize said party on their iPhones, using Facebook and Twitter. They are the kind of site that would never doubt anything that comes of Al-Gore-Jazeera’s mouth and most likely they have a framed and signed photograph of Van Jones in their break room. And yet, I still read. So enjoy the article and the site, till you can’t take it anymore, and try to work a little more quinoa into your diet, and a little less cool aid.

How to tie a gay square knot: The Boy Scouts of America and its compatibility or incompatibility with homosexuality

Hello readers. There is no shortage of topics to write on and talk about that is for sure. That being said, a topic in the news and one that was on Hawaii talk radio this morning was the Boy Scouts of America. An organization near and dear to my heart. They are considering changing the policy of no out homosexuals in their leadership or scout ranks. I think I can talk to this subject, so let’s go.

“…putting on the uniform does not make a fellow a Scout, but putting on the uniform is a sign to the world that one has taken the Scout obligations and should expect Scout-like acts from one wearing it.” from the Handbook for Boys, Third Edition, 1927

What is in the news and seems to be on the table is big Boy Scouts of America, that being the national policy makers for the Boy Scouts, want to let a level or two down from them make the call if homosexuals can be a part of the Boy Scouts. I think this will only break the Boy Scouts apart and eventually lead to the death or complete irrelevance of the Boy Scouts. The idea/policy of letting the councils or troops decide to allow homosexuals will tear the Boy Scouts apart and lead to ridiculousness. The California districts will change their flag and put a rainbow in it, and the Alabama group will ban gays and pray about it, and it will all be ugly. This needs to be a Boy Scouts of America policy if the Boy Scouts of America wants to emerge intact if at all.

Let’s talk about me. I am a former Scout. I was a Cub Scout (very short time I think), a Webelos (an acronym meaning "We'll Be Loyal Scouts"), and a Boy Scout, until just after I was 18 years old. I did not make Eagle, and to me, that really doesn’t matter. It is not an accurate gauge on your achievement as a scout or what you got out of Scouting. It is not a accurate gauge on future success as a human. There are many Eagle Scouts out there who earned it, and there are some who gun decked it. I was also an assistant scout master during my first tour in Hawaii and even went to summer camp with my troop on TAD orders. Yes, that is a good deal. I consider the Boy Scouts of America, the skills I learned, the confidence I learned, the leadership I learned to be a major factor in my enlisting in the Navy (even though one scout master straight up told me joining the military was the stupidest decision I could make, and I would regret it). A major factor/influence in my staying in the Navy and my continued interest in the outdoors and preparedness throughout my life. I was talked to, yelled at and smacked in the head by other Scouts and leaders, and am very thankful for and to all of them. It is good to make mistakes when they don’t really count in life, and the consequences are not as high as they are later in life. And it is good to learn from them then as well. The term Boy Scout is 100% positive to me, the memories, the experience the lessons, were all in one way or another positive. I can recite the Boy Scout Oath and Law and Motto and Slogan. I have even considered a scout themed or inspired tattoo! I am biased towards the Scouts. I am a Scout.

That being said, I am torn when it comes to the subject of their policy on homosexuality. The official policy as of today is this: The Boy Scouts of America's official position is to "not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals" as Scouts or adult Scout Leaders in its traditional Scouting programs. If you have been on the moon for the past decade, here is some background reading.

 

Here comes the torn part. They are private. Yes, some public stuff and land is used, but it is a private club. Like the Catholic Church. If you don’t like the rules, don’t join, don’t associate. The Scouts to me are also public. They are bigger then themselves. They make men who make out country. They make United States Navy Sailors like me. The idea of rank, discipline, familiarity with arms has been cited as a one of the reasons why the United States so quickly was able to grow their military during WWII. These were skills and ideas taught by the Boy Scouts. They make leaders. They have been around for a while. They span and unite generations of men. When their line in the sand was challenged and they said we will not change, they were well within their rights. But, they were fighting a slow battle that would only end with their own defeat down the road. They negative public relations campaign by homosexuals and those who support them, won this battle as soon as it started, but the Scouts didn’t want to admit it. They only outcome possible if the Scouts stand their ground would be for them to shrink so small and become so irrelevant for the rest of the country that only hard core traditionalists most of them motivated religiously would be left in scouting. There would be a few that would oppose the policy but want to be part of Scouts so bad that they would serve silently. Scouts would be small, and what they were and created would be lost.

So what to do? Do they just instantly change? They would lose some of their core membership on the other side of the fight that way. Do they change slowly? Maybe that is what they are doing. I don’t think we can talk about this change without addressing what I think to be the three big points of contention with people who oppose it for a myriad of reasons.

1. Religious. I don’t know or care if you agree or disagree with if homosexuality is wrong because of religious reasons. If you do, hey that is your right. If you don’t, you get the same treatment as those who do. Disagreeing with a practice or act is not hate. That whole tactic of the pro-gay side bugs the shit out of me. Disagreeing, opposing is not hate. Some that disagree do hate, but I think they are a small vocal group. Just as the homosexuals who hate the bible thumpers are also a small, vocal group. I personally think it has some choice involved, maybe a choice you cannot fight or deny. Maybe a choice that does something chemically or emotionally inside of you that makes you feel like it is not a choice. I don’t have those answers and either does anyone. I am fine with anyone liking anyone they want to. I am semi opposed to gay marriage on the basis that I think the state should not be in the business of marriage. It should be in the business of contract law. Churches, family and friends should be in the business of marriage. Just as with heterosexuals, marriage and the state are about benefits and legality’s. It’s about social security and health care. Love and religious tradition does not matter on your state marriage certificate or in a court of law. Side point two, if you bring homosexuality into marriage recognized by the state and law, then for equality purposes, you have to allow polygamy. You have to. Then if you allow three people to marry, you have to allow three hundred to marry. You have to. If you are in search of equality, you have to. Take the church out of it, make it a contract among people, any number of people, the only part the state needs to have anything to do with, and do what you want in your private or religious life. I digress, I will stop. There is a religious part to Scouts, but from what I can remember and from what I retained, it was one of tolerance. One that mirrored our nation’s religious tolerance guarantied in our constitution. To tolerate and or respect other beliefs, and with my knowledge of the world now, that would include Atheists. Even though I am not very fond of them, mostly because I feel they infringe on others rights to practice the religion of their choice. Slowly and sadly, Atheism is becoming our national religion. If it was Christianity there would be mangers at Christmas. We don’t because the religion of Atheism has won, their religion is nothing, and we have nothing. That is religion suppression not religious freedom. Boo. I digress, another subject for another time.

2. Fear. Right or wrong, probably wrong, parents are not comfortable with men who openly are attracted to other men and who are put in the situation with camping and mentoring and forming the minds and ideas of other young men. I think what the public does not talk about is there is a difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. They are not the same or related. Now, if you have a 25 year old gay leader and an 18 year old scout, and something happens, you have two consenting adults, by law. What if it was 25 and 17 and a day before his 18^th birthday, by the law busted, to humans, consenting, maybe. Now, let’s flip the situation. Let’s put a 25 year old straight man in the Girl Scouts, and have him with a 17 or 18 year old female. That too would make some uncomfortable. I do not see a difference. Because the person is interested in the sex that he or she is leading there is a chance, however remote that inappropriate behavior, although possibly legal, could take place. This is nothing new. This was most likely happening when Lord Baden Powell was Scouting and it was happening when I was Scouting and it will happen if they do or don’t let outed homosexuals serve. Is their fear justified, not really, but fear is individual. Have children, boys, men been harmed, yes, so it is not impossible. Chances are very low. But the chances are even lower that a public school child will be killed by an AR-15 but more than half our country believes that the chance, or fear of the chance, is high enough to ban that weapon. Very well made point Chris!

3. Tradition. This one kind of has a little bit of religion in it with maybe some fear. I don’t even know how well I can present this position. Old institutions do not change overnight. Even when their very own existence demands they do. The Boy Scouts have a long tradition of men making boys into men. Even though throughout history there has been homosexuality, both tolerated and not, for the time the Scouts have been in existence, homosexuality has not been an acceptable practice, at least by any large percentage of society. Yes, those numbers are changing. Those numbers are changing because of legal precedents. Those numbers are changing because more and more homosexuals are coming out, or never even been in. Maybe some young men are choosing to be gay. Just throwing it out there, can’t be proved either way. Anyway, there are more homosexuals present and acknowledged and accepted by our society. Not as a whole or a rule, but they are more and more accepted. To ask a private club, that has some religion injected into it, and has a good amount of religious people in it to do an about face on a policy that is very clear to them as wrong, right or wrong, is unreasonable. Our states, with similar constitutions and courts cannot come to the same conclusion about gay marriage and have not universally embraced it, why would we expect a cross section of Americans in the Scouts to be any different?

There are the three points and my two cents on each. Now let me propose some alternative endings. I think it would be positive for the Scout Executives to get a head of, in front of, this issue. They should have or should “come out,” no pun intended, and say this; Scouting is about making future generations of men. There are gays among us and has always been gays among us. This is not new or news. Any leader and scout engaging in inappropriate activities is and has always been wrong. Any leader and scout talking about sexual preferences is not appropriate but is also not inappropriate. A leader gay or straight should guide the scout the same way. If a scout feels comfortable enough to talk to a leader, whatever his orientation is, then that leader should handle that scouts confidence in him very carefully. He neither should encourage nor discourage his way of life. They should be a sounding board, they should be someone the  scout can go to and talk to and trust. And they should help the scout talk to his parents or church or teachers or coaches or friends. It is hard to put some of my ideas into words, but I am trying.

I do not think being a gay leader, if you act appropriately, like a scout leader, will have any negative effect on how you guide scouts in the skills, both life and actual, you are charged with teaching them. I specifically remember one leader or senior scout when talking about personal responsibility, bringing up the topic of condoms. Not bring up sex, as in who or how to, but sexual responsibility. That is a good guide of how to guide of how to lead.

If they, The Boy Scout Executives, got out there in front of microphones and on news shows and said this, they would sell the Scouts and its ideas, like the Marines sell the idea of being a Marine. The idea of being a Marine as enticed both gay and straight men to test themselves and give their lives for our country and other Marines. The Boy Scouts could do the same. They could be leaders on this subject and have more boys wanting to be Scouts then they would know what to do with.

How then will the scared and the religious deal with this? Well, how do they deal with it now in other aspects of their lives? How do they deal with a gay teacher or a gay doctor or a gay guy at Taco Bell. Some will pull their kids out of school others will be cautious, others won’t care. They will all care how the job is done. First they have to know he is gay. If he is leading as a scout leader it might not come up. When a leader is introducing himself, he does not need to say what sex he is attracted to when he gives his credentials as a leader or a former scout. I am not saying stay in the closet or don’t ask don’t tell. I am saying experience, knowledge of knots, merit badges, swimming, first aid, community service all have nothing to do with if you like chicks or dudes. They have to do with each individual subject of knowledge and activity. If and when it is known that a leader is gay, he will have credibility and respect because of his actions and not because he likes boobs, or not. If there is a problem either with the scout or the parents then there needs to be a conference with all involved and if they cannot come to the conclusion that everyone there is putting being and making Scouts first then they need to really consider if they want to be part of this organization or not. That will lose scouts, no doubt about it. But the Scouts standing firm and lifting up what Scouting is about is what will save the Boy Scouts. Excluding scouts and leaders because of one thing that some agree with and some disagree with, will surely doom the Boy Scouts. Those gay scouts and leaders live in our world and will become leaders and fathers. They will pass on their love or hate of the Boy Scouts. If the first gay president (he will be a conservative or libertarian I hope) had a great experience with Scouting and talks about that experience with the rest of the country and the world, well then the what the Boy Scouts did in 2013 and the years following will have not only saved Scouting, but elevated and secured it’s place in today’s American culture and society, where the ideas and ideals of Scouting are so badly needed.

Do not shun, do not promote. No special treatment for gay or for straight. Every boy and man is in the Boy Scouts for Scouting and that is what should motivate and guide them. Not if they like girls, or not. Scout-like acts.