About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

On my Honor
Author: TriSec    Date: 02/06/2010 14:15:13

Monday, February 8 marks the 100th birthday of the Boy Scouts of America.

I've been a member of this organization since I joined as a boy myself when I was 8 years old. Like most of our recruiting, it was a friend that convinced me to join, and I've been at it ever since. My friend went on to make Eagle, but I did not...something I regret more and more each year. You all know I never left the organization except for a brief period when I was at college; once I graduated I returned to my 'home unit' and became Unit Commissioner, and ever since then I've filled a variety of roles at both the Boy Scout and Cub Scout level.

Now my own son and his friends are following the scouting trail; I'm his den leader (Bears) and Cubmaster, and we're all going along happily.


But what does it mean to be a scout? Most of you are at least familiar with our guiding principles, as outlined in the Scout Oath and Law. It's pretty straightforward and easy for kids to understand, since this is primarily a youth organization.

Or is it?

For years and years now, it seems that the only time Scouting is in the news is when we kick out an atheist or a gay and they go crying to the media about it. Nevermind the ocassional child predator that's out there. (And I'll note that the incidences in Scouting are statistically no different than any other youth organization or sport...but because it's the Boy Scouts, we get all the headlines.)

Did you know that there's actually a reason behind the vehement, conservative, right-wing direction that Scouting is headed? Many churches have a youth organization. Many scout troops are indeed chartered by churches. But there's one group that has declared scouting to be their "official" youth organization, and they do not run anything else.

Continue reading...

5 comments (Latest Comment: 02/06/2010 19:40:25 by livingonli)

Considering the Extremists
Author: BobR    Date: 02/05/2010 13:47:42

Is it fair to tar an entire group with the same broad brush when it's only a few "bad apples" that are causing the problem? This seems to be an apt question as it relates to religious extremism. That label itself is somewhat nebulous in application - how would you apply it? How about someone who is willing to knowingly break the law because their beliefs compel them too?.. No? How about someone who hurts another person because their beliefs compel them too?
Continue reading...

73 comments (Latest Comment: 02/06/2010 05:07:39 by livingonli)

What's good for the goose...
Author: Raine    Date: 02/04/2010 14:03:30

Yesterday it was the Democrat's turn to have question time with the President. In what looked more like a panel of people standing up for political campaign ads, Senate Dems stood forth to ask the president questions. Not surprisingly this debate was far more low key and even somewhat genial.
Continue reading...

42 comments (Latest Comment: 02/05/2010 03:22:33 by Raine)

The Elephant in the Room
Author: BobR    Date: 02/03/2010 13:40:05

When I was young, it was pretty clear what the two major parties stood for. The Democrats stood for change, and the Republicans stood for the status quo. The Republicans were also supposed to be the party of fiscal discipline. That latter aspect was tossed out the window when Reagan took office and drove up deficits through accelerated military spending. When Bush took office in 2000, he (and congressional Republicans) trashed the rest of their legacy with actions both regressive and radical, trampling on Constitutional rights. What does the party stand for these days? It's impossible to tell - it seems they are only against things.

They are against anything the Democrats support, and against President Obama in particular. Nearly every legislative initiative put forth by the Democrats has been voted against en masse by the Republicans, even those that were originally Republican ideals, and supported strongly by them:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


A poll released on Sunday shows that voters who identify themselves as Republicans have some pretty crazy ideas:

  • Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not? 39% said yes. For what?, I have to ask...

  • Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not? 36% said no, with another 22% unsure.

  • Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win? 24% said yes, with another 33% unsure.

  • Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama? only 14% said no.

But that's just the voters that believe these crazy things, right?... No, even the elected officials - besides condemning legislation that supports their goals just because the Dems are writing it - believe some of the craziness. The Lt. Governor of TN isn't sure if President Obama is a U.S. citizen. He's running to be the governor of one of the 50 states and he's a "birther"??

A House Rep - Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) - has a great idea to help balance the budget: Cut Social Security benefits for those under 55 years old. That should go over well with the electorate.

Finally, we address the issue of the trials for terrorism suspects. When Bush did it, they crowed about what a success it was. Yet now that it's President Obama doing the same thing, suddenly it's the worst idea ever. In fact, they are trying to force the issue via legislation. Would they be doing this if it was a Republican president? Of course not.

I can't believe the voters are happy with this sort of "I'm against it" nay-saying to whatever the Democrats are supporting, to the point where their coming out against their own policies. We'll see later this year whether they are rewarded or punished at the polls for their bizarre behavior.

 
35 comments (Latest Comment: 02/03/2010 21:44:12 by livingonli)

Ask a Vet
Author: TriSec    Date: 02/02/2010 11:30:51

Good Morning.

Today is our 2,512th day in Iraq and our 3,040th day in Afghanistan.

We'll start this morning as we always do, with the latest casualty figures from Iraq and Afghanistan, courtesy of Antiwar.com:

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 4375
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03): 4236
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3912
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3516
Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09): 147

Other Coalition Troops - Iraq: 325
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan: 973
Other Military Deaths - Afghanistan: 635
Contractor Employee Deaths - Iraq: 1,395
Journalists - Iraq: 335
Academics Killed - Iraq: 431

We find this morning's cost of war passing through:

$ 956, 095, 700, 000 .00



Here at Ask a Vet, we often tend to focus on the political, and the goings-on in Washington. Every now and again, however...we still remember the original intent of this column, focusing on the troops.

Let me ask everyone out there, which state do you think has the highest per-capita casualty rate? Surely it must be red-blooded, superpatriotic, God-fearing Texas? Maybe it's ultraconservative, ultrareligious South Carolina? I've blogged about this before. You're all wrong. It's liberal, peace-loving Vermont.

Continue reading...

45 comments (Latest Comment: 02/03/2010 02:23:01 by Mondobubba)

An evening in Charm City
Author: Raine    Date: 02/01/2010 13:42:27

I think this sums up what happened in Baltimore best:
"On Friday President Obama appeared before House Republicans in a historic televised Q & A and performed so well, afterwards GOP Aids said that allowing cameras to roll like that was a mistake. Come on Republicans, are you on such a Scott Brown high you thought you could take down Barack Obama by debating him? You realize debates are why he is President, right? Seriously, all you do is complain how Obama is all talk and then you invite him to a forum that is literally all talk. That's like saying lets see how tough Aquaman is once we get him in the water. I'm not saying you were out classed but the whole thing was like the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the guy charged at Indiana Jones with the sword and he just shot him."
Continue reading...

47 comments (Latest Comment: 02/02/2010 02:32:01 by livingonli)

Open Blog
Author: velveeta jones    Date: 01/31/2010 13:03:46

Obama found his "nads" Discuss.
 
5 comments (Latest Comment: 01/31/2010 21:46:22 by livingonli)

Cleaning out the drawer of the blog mind
Author: TriSec    Date: 01/30/2010 13:22:18

Of course, with the usual apologies to Bob Ryan, from whom I shamelessly steal this idea from time to time.

I've had several ideas for a blog this day, none of which was really fleshed out. But let's start with a new term I heard this week.

"Superminority"

Yep, some pundit actually invented this term to tell us that the United States was rendered essentially ungovernable last week. (Thanks to all my voting colleagues here in this Commonwealth.) Never mind that the so-called 'Kennedy Seat' flipped, and by so doing we killed the esteemed Senator's life's work at the same time.

Right now, if the Democrats sponsored legislation making it illegal to kill, cook, and eat kittens....the Republicans would oppose it.

There's been much talk recently of "forcing the republicans into action" from some factions of the left. Well....I say let's do it! The filibuster used to be a last-ditch weapon that required sacrifice and physical discomfort to pull off effectively. (look up Strom Thurmond's record 24 hours sometime). Now it's become a concept.

If the Republicans want to oppose some legislation, then the Senate leadership should call it to a vote and let the chips fall where they may. I'd rather go down fighting than turning tail and running off, but with the current Senate leadership (re: NONE), I doubt we'll see that happening anytime soon.



You know Raine called me on it last week...and I posted a brief blog a few weeks back enumerating my displeasure with the administration and it's actions...and my thoughts that I might just go back Libertarian.

Well....that idea has gone out the window of late. The Libertarians look to be forging a coalition with the Teabaggers, and since I believe the tea group operates on a different plane from the rest of us, this isn't a realistic option anymore. Obama's election might have been a foregone conclusion in 2008, but the Libertarians also had a tremendous opportunity then to make some headway on the national stage. Instead, we got candidate Bob Barr, who ended up destroying the party.

I've been listening to some Libertarian podcasts recently, but I just ditched them all. There's a common theme....Obama is taking away our guns! (Seriously...I just listened to 3 weeks of debate about gun laws.) Is this all people think about in other parts of the country, with everything else that's going on?


Ah, but we'll finish up with Scott Brown. Guess what label he's rolled out for himself? Yep, he's gone all mavericky.

In an interview the other day, he explicity refused to toe the party line, stating “With all due respect, I really don’t know a lot of you people, and you don’t know me. But maybe that’s good, because I’m going to vote how I want to vote.’’

I'm sure that's all fine and good going in, but once Mr. Brown learns how Washington Republicans work, he'll start singing a different tune pretty quickly.

But here's a thought....how about voting what your constituents want?


 
3 comments (Latest Comment: 01/30/2010 22:32:57 by livingonli)

A Propensity for Puritanism
Author: BobR    Date: 01/29/2010 12:47:42

Unless you've been living under a rock lately, you've heard the news of J.D. Salinger's passing. He was most famous for his ground-breaking novel "Catcher in the Rye". Loved by most who read it, the book was controversial, not because of its ideas or philosophy, but because of the language and the topics that Holden Caufield (the story's protagonist) discussed. America was founded by Puritans, and it seems that influence has never really gone away.

The book itself was banned in numerous schools, teachers even lost their jobs for assigning it to high school students. You would think that after centuries of advancement, our society would have moved past this. Granted, this was way back in the 1970s... that's practically ancient history. We're way beyond that now, right?
Continue reading...

27 comments (Latest Comment: 01/30/2010 00:19:07 by Scoopster)

Don't run for the Hills
Author: Raine    Date: 01/28/2010 13:45:33

Well, that was that. the presidents first official State of the Union Address. Time will tell if Congress acts upon his directives. He directly called for Congress to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. He called for Congress to change the way we fund elections. He punted on the environment, but if that is my biggest complaint, then so be it.

I was glad that that he didn't say the 'State of our Union is Strong' -- because it isn't. Instead, he chose these carefully crafted words:
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable, that America was always destined to succeed.

But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain.

These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.

Continue reading...

58 comments (Latest Comment: 01/28/2010 22:53:19 by Mondobubba)

<<  522  523  524  525  526  527  >>
Order by most recent comment   Complete Blog Entry List