Scouting was never about sex or sexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality or other. Radical homosexual activists with an agenda tried to force the BSA, a private organization, to accept their views. It started with attacks on the BSA in San Francisco and spread from there. It got so bad the Boy Scouts were even booed at the Democratic National Convention in August 2000. Even when the Supreme Court ruled that the BSA, as a private organization, could exclude anyone they wanted to, the activists persisted. (You know how persistant these types are; they are same people who disrupted mass at St. Patrick's in New York, throwing condoms and even desecrating a communion host.)
It's sad that there seems to be a need to expose children to adult topics at earlier ages these days. Does sex need to be part of teaching boys about camping, hiking, and swimming? Should the BSA be required to develop a policy and discuss abortion rights? Let's have one place where kids can still be kids.
If there was ever a place for 'don't ask, don't tell' its in scouting. If you are truly interested in helping the scouting program, why do you need to make your sexual preference known? What purpose does it serve other than to push an agenda where it has no place. If you don't like the BSA rules, don't join.
EPA is right. This pipeline is not worth the risk.
The project is only vital for a more rapid decay of our environment.
Ideological extremists and assorted crackpots have succeeded in tying up this vital project for far too long. Enough already with this insanity! America desperately needs the jobs, and the world needs the Canadian oil—which it is going get no matter what. Abolish the EPA, ship the most offensive environmentalist kooks off to Gitmo, and get on with it. Drill, baby, drill!!
A primary aim of scouting is to inculcate a virtuous character. Obviously it would be completely counter-productive to install adult leaders who espouse an immoral lifestyle.
By the way, the Warren campaign's charges are bunk. Last time I looked, the process for selecting a political party’s nominess, whether by a caucus for mayor or via voters participating in a state’s presidential primary, was designed to award the nomination to whoever obtained a majority of the votes. Naturally this meant that, should one candidate obtain that majority before all caucuses had met or before all states had held their primates, then unavoidably the votes of the later groups would be rendered superfluous.
So when a candidate wraps up their win early is this the result of racism or some other evil attempt at disenfranchisement or to discourage voter participation? Of course not. It’s simply a matter of timing. You want your vote to count? Then work to ensure that your caucus or your state primary is held early enough to have an impact. As Ben Franklin said, “You may delay, but time will not.”
Ms. Fien - Thank you for the clarification. But I see that you didn't update the article itself and so unless someone reads your comment here they will receive an inaccurate view of the event.
Shouldn’t the statement now read,...
“The loss might even work to Warren’s advantage by reinforcing her campaign narrative of being an “outsider”: the candidate of the people versus the candidate of the city’s business interests.”?
GARY WALKER?! LOL. Does that mean I get to share his salary now? Actually, I campaigned for Bill Johnson 2 years ago -- not something Gary Walker would have done (at least not if he wanted to keep his job).
Interesting change of messaging. From Morelle's original press statement:
"The OVERWHELMING support for Mayor Richards expressed by the City Democratic Committee is an indication that the people of Rochester STRONGLY APPROVE of his leadership these past two years," (emphasis added)
MJN, I should've been clearer. What I meant is that Richards is clearly the choice of the party machine, and the narrative Warren's campaign is using is that of someone who will represent people who feel disenfranchised: like they don't have a voice in city government.
City news editor
"The loss might even work to Warren’s advantage by reinforcing her “outsider” status: the candidate of the people versus the candidate of the city’s business interests."
Will somebody please explain how Warren, who has been city council president for three years, and a council member prior to that , can run as an "outsider"?
@YeashuaAD :Thanks for the enlightenment. I always though Gary Walkers stage name was "Good Gov".....so obviously he has more than one. The point is he is now accusing others of playing the "race card" when in fact his boss and Joe Morelle in particular did so with their premature announcement that all but suggested the 3 committees not counted were a non factor since they represent the majority of minorities in the City of Rochester. The gloves will definitely be OFF from here on out. I hope smart voters are paying attention.
Morelle is getting pretty big for his britches. Just another example of how he serves his own interests and not those of the public—especially not the public in the 22nd, 25th and 27th LDs. Really disappointing that Richards went along with this. I used to think he was an honorable man, even if he was more than a bit out of touch with his constituents.
I second Yeshua’s point about Gary Walker—aka RaChaCha. Maybe CityNews should FOIL his computer logs. I’m sure I’m not the only taxpayer unhappy about him spending public dollars trashing city council president.
When Lovely Warren and a majority of African American leaders supported Tom Richards for Mayor in 2011, it was with the understanding that Richards would finish out Bob Duffy's term and step aside.
When Lovely Warren and a majority of African American leaders supported Tom Richards for Mayor in 2011, Bill Johnson had not yet entered the race. After Johnson entered the race, they KEPT THEIR WORD and continued to support Richards.
Richards and Joe Morelle have not kept their word. It is they who are holding the knives. Morelle has been playing the race card from the beginning.
The idiotic and unnecessary press release they issued today illustrates the incompetence of Joe Morelle as Monroe County Democratic Chair. It also demonstrates that Tom Richards is unfit to serve all of the residents of Rochester. That the two of them would get together and issue a press release giving the false impression that Richards is backed by 75% of the City when they know that to be untrue reveals this to be both a blatant attempt to dismiss the wishes of a large portion of the City's population and a desperate attempt to energize a campaign and a candidate who have no vision for the future of the City of Rochester.
BTW, everyone knows that RaChaCha is Gary Walker, the Communications Director for the City of Rochester. I hope he wasn't on City time when he posted here on behalf of his boss.
Lovely Warren strongly supported Tom Richards, even posing for a photo with him for campaign literature, in his first attempt at the office of Mayor. So when it benefited her to support Tom Richards and Joe Morelle's decision to support Tom Richards it was fine, but now it is some sort of knife in the back to city blacks for Joe Morelle to support Tom Richards this time? Tom Richards had a black opponent last time with Bill Johnson as he does this time with Lovely Warren. Seems as though Lovely will say anything to get elected. How unfortunate for this city to have this type of dialogue starting and not a focus on what really matters.
So the Warren camp is playing the race card early. Will it also be often? I'd say so, with Chris Christopher on board.
Whether intentional or not, Morelle's statement has elicited just what kind of campaign the Gantt/Christopher/Warren camp intends to run.
"And senators, most Republicans and some Democrats, saw the 2014 election in front of them and voted for job preservation."
If you want to be a newspaper pundit when you grow up, here's a can't-miss rule of thumb: Half the time, attack elected representatives for IGNORING their constituents' wishes. Then the half of the time, attack them for FOLLOWING their constituents' wishes. Heads I win, tails you lose!
Oh, and complain about "partisanship" even when nearly a third of the majority caucus votes against its leadership (as with the semiautomatic ban).
.Ms. Warren has had three years as city council president to focus her attention on the city school situation and to convince her colleagues on the council that this area should be their first priority. But for some reason she neglected to do this. Nor, when one reads her biography and personal "mission statement” on the city council’s web site, does she give the condition of Rochester’s schools even a passing mention.
Such overnight conversions may be genuine if one is St. Paul on the road to Damascus. But when claimed by politicians running for higher office they tend to appear cynical and disingenuous.
This is going to be an awesome campaign season. Cover it all, City! Cover it all.
MJN - My sarcasm meter jumped into the red zone with your post.
Your point is understood, well-made even.
However, even with the element of common-sense you bring, I can't get worked up in favor of any additional restriction - no matter how practical, reasonable or common-sensical - to any of our freedoms.
We have lost too many in the last few decades. Freedoms of communication (Patriot Act), against unreasonable search and seizure (TSA), loss of property to eminent domain (Kelo), federal minimum sentences and others... all these and more have led America away from being the beacon of liberty she used to be, and into the "modern" world of limited freedoms (in a macro sense) we live in today.
We may have plenty of day-to-day freedoms left (thank God for the 1st Amendment), but in a full understanding of where we've been and what we've done, we're less free today than we've been in a long, long time.
Until we regain some freedoms for Americans who aren't bankers, politicians or lobbyists, giving up ANY freedoms is a sacrifice no one should be willing to make.
Website powered by Foundation