I won't Back Down

And neither should the Boy Scouts of America.
The newest uproar has to do with the BSA's Body Mas Index (BMI) restrictions for those attending the next National Scout Jamboree.

Boy Scouts' Jamboree should include those barred due to BMI restrictions, experts say

 ...

The Boy Scouts of America’s new fitness standards for participating in the organization’s annual Jamboree are so rigorous they would not just exclude chubby tenderfoots — they would even bar many NFL players.
All Scouts were required to have a physical exam in advance of the Jamboree and those with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or greater were barred from participating at this year’s gathering, which features strenuous activities such as hiking, rock climbing, rappelling and biking. Scouts with BMIs between 32 and 39.9 had to provide additional health information to take on the 1,000-plus acre Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve in West Virginia. But critics told FoxNews.com excluding obese Boy Scouts goes against the spirit of the organization.

...
“Unfortunately it still does exclude children due to their weight, but I’m sure they’re looking at their health and potential negative health consequences,” she said. “But maybe they could walk [the course] or do what they can and not be excluded. Anything that the Boy Scouts could do to compensate for the stigma of being excluded would be great.”
The Council on Size & Weight Discrimination said it "deplores" the Boys Scouts decision, calling it  "an unfair and discriminatory policy."
"There are boy scouts who are heavier than average but extremely fit and capable of strenuous physical activity. At the same time, it is patently absurd to assume that just because a boy is thin, that means he is capable of a three-mile hike up a mountain," the group said in a statement.
The average NFL player would qualify for the 10-day competition, but by no means would the entire league. The average BMI for an NFL player for the 2012 season was 31.35, according to SportingCharts.com, well above the normal range of 18.5-24.9 as set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At 45.64, Michael Jasper of the New York Giants had the highest BMI last season, the website reported. The league’s average nose tackle – with a BMI of 40.50 – would also be ineligible for the Boy Scout’s Jamboree.
 ...

Obesity is not an epidemic - it is a personal choice. There is no one in the world who cannot change their diet, exercise more, and lose weight. There is a very low chance that any scout would be above a BMI of 40 and still be healthy - only a few of the top athletes in the NFL have a BMI above 40, and comparing teenaged boys to professional athletes makes very little sense.
Simply put, if a person is going to have a really high BMI and still be healthy, they are going to be a top athlete who practices a sport where weight and muscle can significantly affect a persons effectiveness.
No matter whether the BMI comes from fat, or muscle, losing the weight is quite simple, and relatively easy. There may be discrimination going on, but it is not the same as discrimination based upon something that another person has no say in - such as race. No one gets to choose their race. Everyone who can afford food chooses their weight, through a combination of diet and exercise. Weight is a choice, and thus, a valid form of discrimination. 

A collections of Scandals

Someone went through the trouble of collecting the majority of the current administration's scandals in one place - along with a little commentary.

Well worth reading.

The Uselessness of Gun Control

We already know that gun control cannot keep guns out of the hands of anyone who is willing to break a few laws, and now we have a study from the CDC showing that youth homicides are at their lowest in thirty years. Given the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, and the failure of recent federal gun control measures to pass, only the most stubborn of gun control advocates can continue to claim that less gun control means more homicides.

Friendly...

There is a saying: There are friendly foreign governments, but there are no friendly foreign intelligence agencies.
Most nations in the world have at least one agency devoted to espionage and/or counter-espionage. How well those twin missions executed can have a major impact on how well a nation does, and if performed right can give a nation a major advantage over other nations. Thus, any nation without an intelligence agency of some sort is at a distinct disadvantage, and is either too poor or too incompetently led to be a serious threat to any nation with a more than token military.
Thus, when other countries steal our secrets I don't get mad at those countries. I just want the various intelligence agencies here in the US to work extra hard to prevent more secrets from being stolen and for the US to retaliate against whomever stole the secrets. And when we're the ones stealing secrets from other countries I want our government to do its best to avoid any serious repercussions. After all, when it comes to intelligence gathering, even among allies, it is not a case of "want". It is a case of "need". It is immoral for a nation to not gather intelligence, engage in counter-intelligence, attempt to reprise against those who steal it's secrets, and attempt to avoid reprisal when it is caught stealing secrets.
The problems come when intelligence agencies spy upon the citizens that they're supposed to protect.

The Devil You know...

Egypt's Army just got rid of Mohammed Morsi. After deposing Hosni Mubarak the Egyptians found that they didn't like his replacement either. They should be really careful about who they pick to become the next president, so that they don't end up with another de facto dictator - who might just be worse than his predecessors.

Gitmo Prisoners are pampered and spoiled, not abused

When in the past, prisoners had gotten so plump on an "Islamically correct menu" that they were given a gym, they refused - because the equipment wasn't made by Muslims.
The only thing that the prisoners at Gitmo need is treatment on par with that received by prisoners of Al-Qaeda.

On Civil Disobedience

If your government is doing something wrong, then there is nothing wrong with engaging in public civil disobedience in protest, as long as the civil disobedience is nonviolent, does not betray a trust, and the individual accepts the consequences that goes with the violation (if you're going to violate a law, you need to be willing to take the punishment - if you're boycotting a company you need to be willing to do without any product by that company, including products and services already purchased). Note that when a person's actions endanger the lives of others they cannot be considered nonviolent. Violent protest on the other hand is immoral, because it endangers the lives of others.
There is are a few exceptions to the rule:

Ending Rape in War

Angelina Jolie wants someone (namely the UN) to end rape in war. It would be wonderful if that could happen, but in order for someone to do that they would need two things. The military might and the ability to project it, to force warring groups to exercise tighter discipline over their troops, and the political will to use it. Economic sanctions and stern admonitions will just go ignored - there must be a credible threat backing up the request to enforce anti-rape laws.

The UN doesn't have either of those. There isn't anyone out there who could do it without ending up in a thousand little and not so little wars with half of the world, so there probably isn't anyone capable of doing the job, and there definitely isn't anyone willing to do the job. All that has been accomplished by the actress is to bring up an issue that isn't getting solved short of someone conquering the world - and probably not even then.

If someone comes up with a workable plan for ending rape in warzones where the laws of war are usually ignored, I will happily eat my words.

Oh look, a Five Year Plan!

The President has announced a five year plan to ensure that 99% of schools have high speed internet by 2018. Ignoring that I really doubt the need for high speed internet in schools, a five year plan? If this new plan works as well as some of the USSR's or PRC's plans we can expect the majority of schools to be without internet of any sort within five years.

Old shit is still shit

Just because the Patriot Act was ratified years ago (well before I became a voter), and the records of cell phone companies have been being seized ever since, does not mean that the whole steaming pile of shit isn't shit - it just means that no one has bothered to check back and take care of the problem, be that problem a law that arguably violates the fourth amendment, or your dog's shit in your living room.

I understand that the whole idea behind the Patriot Act is to keep us safe. I don't really care. Our Government should be concerned with our freedom first, our safety second, and our prosperity third.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, sacrificing freedom for safety will ensure that we don't have either of them.