Lightning Strikes Twice for Scouts
If gays, the ACLU and abortionists were responsible for 9/11, according to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, whatÆs bringing down divine wrath on the Boy Scouts?
First a scouter leader struck a power line with a tent pole killing four, and four days later, two more dead on July 30th struck by lightning. Five days later, Scouts in Utah got another jolt this time from a lightning bolt, another Boy Scout dead, more injured. Then lightning struck again.áSeven dead in nine days in three incidents of high voltage, a very, very unusual coincidence. Or maybe a message.
The Boy Scouts famously exclude those who do not believe in God, but itÆs foolish to exclude a child who might benefit from exposure to the Scouts and their values, teachings and community. Requiring children to profess belief in a supreme being doesnÆt give them time to make up their minds and discourages free thinking. Besides, ten-year olds have no idea what God is except what theyÆve been told.á Might as well ask a Martian about Michael Jackson.
The YMCA is a Christian organization but doesnÆt exclude atheists.
My suggestion of divine retribution is every bit as ridiculous as Falwell and Robertson’s, but the point is not lost. The Scouts are squandering an opportunity to reach the very people who need them most, kids most likely not being taught about God at home. Seems unchristian-like.
When confronted with the same situation, the Girl Scoutsáthey were flexible and allowed the substitution of a few words to their pledge. They donÆt exclude.
ItÆs an awfully odd coincidence, all this electricity in the air. Maybe the Scouts should rethink their policy. Until then, if youÆre a Scout and a thunderstorm is coming, IÆd put down that golf club.
I never understood the French-bashing phenomena. IÆve even heard a few cracks about baguette-eating surrender monkeys on cooking shows. The French are so low on the American totem pole, they’d have less chance of surviving a Marine funeral than a pinada at a baseball game. But wait, didn’t the French come to America’s rescue in the Revolutionary War?
Oh yeah, thatÆs right, the Brits were pretty much kicking American ass until the French started supplying troops and resources. And it was a French fleet that blocked the Brits from resupplying and led to their surrender at Yorktown — to a combined American / French force. HereÆs a quote from a college course on the War:
ôWithout the involvement of the French, the U.S. victory (especially at the time and in the way that it happened) would have been in doubt. But, the Americans almost from the first failed to give adequate recognition to the French for what they had done….The involvement in the American cause turned out to be quite costly for the French government. It was never clearly established that the supplies were loans and not gifts – an issue never settled. As a result, the involvement in America turned out to be one of the factors that soon plunged the government into the chaos that resulted in the French Revolution.ö
Hmm. Flag waving, beret bashing, freedom-fry-flinging fools use history as their justification for the sophomoric characterization of a country — a country that tried to save us from a quagmire in Iraq for HeavenÆs sake! The French said Bush was being hasty and his justifications were shaky, which turned out to be true. Even the Congressman who proposed the freedom fry faux pas no longer supports the war.
YouÆd think the French would get a little more respect in this country — at the very least, on cooking shows.
Under the category of worst excuse to kill your spouse, a Florida man was sentenced to die for bludgeoning his wife to death because she wanted to snuggle following sex and he wanted to watch Sportscenter. The man admitted to the crime and agreed with the sentence.
Bush has done it again. He promised that fighting ôover thereö would prevent terror ôover here,ö but terror is already on American soil, right in the heart of the heartland, exported from Iraq to our sunny shores courtesy of clueless George.
IÆm talking about the thousands of soldiers coming home freaked out from a year or more of hell fighting an enemy that canÆt be distinguished from the population. Two GIs were in the news recently for home town shootings, and scores more have cited combat fatigue as the reason they snapped. TheyÆre coming back terrorized and passing it on to their families, neighbors, co-workers, or random people who donÆt look right.
There are a lot of unintended consequences to GeorgeÆs actions.
What was sold as a six-month breeze in the desert has become a two-years-and-counting slog that is taking a huge toll in lives lost, dollars cost, families disrupted and a White House corrupted. If WMD had been found, or Osama found hiding in Baghdad, or if Bush hadnÆt twisted 9-11 into his own personal crusade and tied it to Iraq, I wouldnÆt lay the blame on him for the costs of the war. But after reading about young soldiers coming home terrorized, possibly looking at another tour of duty coming up, and thinking about all the costs and all the deceptions large and small — yeah, clueless George deserves the blame.
He let Rumsfeld run amock in the early days and field an army too small to finish the job. He rushed to war on a political time line, invading before all resources were in place and all options exhausted so as not to get in the way of his reelection. At every turn he has bamboozled and floundered as commander-in-chief, repeating the old stay the course mantra reminiscent of LBJ and æNam. And he has no clue how to get us out.
And still to come, real live terrorists spread around the world after learning the tricks of the trade in the best simulation possible: an insurgent war on their turf. Brilliant move. We don’t have enough trouble at home so George stirs it up elsewhere.
Why this president is still approved of by 42 percent of Americans is beyond me. Maybe itÆs how he and his brother stood up for Terri Schiavo.