firstpusk

Brent, thanks so much for the dismissive tone. I have had a couple of important appointments this afternoon and another I am leaving for right now. I don''t have time to be at your beck and call today. Maybe we can play tomorrow.

eolesen, Arpanet is a long way from what we have now. He was working with the people that were experts and helped provide the resources to make the internet what it is now. That is what he was claiming and that is the reason he has been recognized. "However.... Taking credit for someone elses''''s work goes entirely against my view of A Scout Is Trustworthy." Misrepresenting Gore''s claim is not trustworthy.

Brent, Let me give you one of my experiences. I called into the local Christian talk station to talk with this global warming ''expert'' they were interviewing. I challenged him on the manner in which he misrepresented some snowfall data. I indicated that the researcher had asked that their work not be misrepresented in such a way. Then, I asked him about the source of his funding. He immediately tried to change the subject to yet another study that he also misrepresented. He simply refused to answer about money his group recieved from Exxon and kept trying to change the subject. Since that experience, I look up any global warming denialist I come across. I have yet to find a single one that is not in the pocket of big oil, period. Beyond that, their respect for science seems to be a bit on the questionable side. They generally aren''t doing their own research. Instead, they misrepresent the work of others like the guy I mentioned above. If you have some that are your favorites, I''ll take a look at them. The half dozen or so I have investigated have all been dirty in just these ways. The president''s green house is one of the few things I find commendable. I think his promise to act on global warming during the 2000 campaign would also had been commendable had he not knuckled under to his oil constituency. I agree with the others that point out that Gore''s house and the president''s are small potatoes compared with Bush''s flip-flop. If you want to talk about who is the greater hypocrit, that one is easy. He is the guy with the green house and the low electric bill.

I''m shocked! Shocked, that someon would think national would allow money to influence program decisions.

"I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Gore clearly took the legislative initiative to make the internet possible. He deserves credit for being ahead of every other political leader on that account. What is your excuse for repeating a falsehood?

Ed, I believe that you said: "Al Gore didn''''t invent the internet! Al Gore can''''t dance! These are all facts we must live with!" Al Gore didn''t claim he invented the internet. You were wrong. Gore''s energy use has been a subject of attack from a number of right-wing groups. He claims that he is trying to reduce the energy usage of his house. He has purchased high cost green energy sources. He then claims to purchase enough carbon offsets to reduce his carbon footprint to zero. The reporting I have read from these critics emphasizes the energy usage and garbles or tries to ignore the green energy sources and carbon offsets. I''d be happier if he consumed less in the first place. However, I haven''t seen anything that can contradict his zero carbon footprint claim.

Thanks pack, I understand what you are saying. I get a bit tired of the sliming mentality. Much like his work on the internet, Gore has worked with scientists to popularize their work. Climate change is a reality. The exact extent of its impact and its timing is not clearly understood, yet. I appreciate you mentioning that the science is available to those who are willing to seek it. I have spent some time reading some of it. I also have sought out the ''work'' of those taking an alternate view. I have yet to find a scientist skeptical of consensus view that hasn''t taken oil company money. That does not mean they are dishonest, but it does make me question if there is ''another side'' in any real scientific sense. I certainly think it would be more appropriate to question the honesty of these skeptics than that of Gore.

Gern, I guess you were right... http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2730

Ed, I think you shouldn''t repeat the false statements that Gore claimed to invent the internet. He did indeed take the lead in legislating to make it possible, and did (rightly) take credit for that. Some can dispute his choice of words in the Wolf Blitzer interview that is cited as the origin of this scurulous claim. However, I think it is a much worse offense falsely accuse an honorable public servant of dishonesty. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Sorry. "Ben" went to the far right and off the screen on my PC. How appropriate. A slight shift and I see where you are coming from. There is no case for IDC, so Ben and Co. are going to try for the sympathy vote. It does seem to undermine their case for fairness when they start out by lying.

"Speech is another matter. And their assertion that speech is not being protected is, in my mind, subject to doubt given their lie regarding the interviews. So rail on Ben, and good luck. But you shot your credibility when you lied. I''ll probably wait until I can see it for $1 at the local student theatre. The lowest denomination of the land." Did you just call me a liar? Is this some kind of mean-spirited joke?

The entire "Expelled" project misrepresents the creation/evolution debate by framing those pushing religion as science as victims. I think that this NY Times article is somewhat enlightening on Ben Stein''s creationist movie project. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=1&em&ex=1191211200&en=2d7df8cdb5e2a971&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin There is no scientific case to be made for Intelligent Design Creationism. It is merely the latest legal dodge to try to teach religion in public school science classrooms. I think this paragraph from the article puts it nicely. "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature. As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are ''not within the scope or abilities of science.''" I know someone who was interviewed for the movie. He felt that the intentions of the producers were misrepresented. He was paid, and is interested to see how they try to twist his words to forward the case of creationism. It is most ironic that the producers felt it necessary to lie to scientists they interviewed to make a false case for ''fairness'' for Intelligent Design Creationism. The truth of the matter is there is no scientific research being done on intelligent design, even by the the ID scientists. If you want to know the status of this ''theory'', take a bit of time to read the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover written by a consevative Republican, Federal Judge John E. Jones who was appointed by President GW Bush in 2002. The dishonesty of those promoting this ''theory'' as science comes through loud and clear. http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/decision.htm

"Safety Afloat Hasen't changed in MANY, MANY years. Lifeguards have never that I know of been required. While its good to have one and is recommended its not required." When I started as a scoutmaster in the early 90's, a lifeguard was required for canoe trips. That is why I initially attained the certification. It has not been required. I think that it is a great idea to have someone BSA Lifeguard certified, but it is no longer required.. "I know of no reason why they just don't do Tour Permit and do it right. If they have SA/SSD defense leaders then they have meet G2SS requirenments. Why fudge on something when there is no reason." My son's unit (I am an SA) tried to skirt the rules. There was no need to do that. It is foolish to use the parent/child activity ruse. File a float plan oulining the acivity giving times, dates, put in, take out and leader resources/qualifications. We do a trip on the Bois Brule in nortern Wisconsin. I have a book that details the two trips we take. I throw photo-copies of the narrative and map from the book. I give copies to each parent, the CC, COR, the leaders on the trip, and a copy with the tour permit. That way, everyone in the unit is on the same page.

So Mr. BrentAllen, how does one define the "Hate Bush crowd"? Is it anyone that shines a critical light on the administration? Is it limited to the media, or do you define the career intelligence analysts, government officials and military officers as part of the crowd when they point out that there is something rotten in Denmark. I guess it would be pretty tough for you to get any kind of objective view if all sources are required to lionize the president or be considered part of the "Hate Bush crowd". I am sure that anything that isn't Rush or Faux is not reliable enough for you, even if it is the original memos, reports or tesimony.

"I'm so tired of this argument." Too bad. You should understand the argument before you tire of it. "Do I really need to post all the quotes again from ALL the politicians who spoke of what a grave threat Saddam was, with his weapons? Kerry, Clinton, Albright, Berger, Gore, Kennedy, Waxman, Edwards, Cohen? Ill be glad to do it, again." I suppose that you will claim that they were working with the same intelligence that the Bush administration had. This simply won't cut it. There are too many examples like the Niger yellowcake story. You see the problem is these folks were being lied to just like you and me. Too bad they actually expected honesty from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. "Then you will say they were all lying too..." Not a chance. As I said above, they were lied to just like you and me.I would say that they were intentionally given mis-information that skewed their understanding. "...or change your story to Bush wasn't actually lying, he just cherry-picked the intelligence. That would be just as false as your claim that Bush lied to get us into war." The administration both cherry-picked intelligence and lied us into war with Iraq. "The fact is there was an intelligence failure." It seems to me that the more honest way to characterize the situation is to say that intelligence was adequate to warn us that war with Iraq was unnecessary. The failure was to properly use intelligence. Instead, we had an administration that sought war with Iraq even before 9/11. "Everyone, let me repeat EVERYONE, thought he had the weapons." This is not true. Many questioned the administation's assertions. The inspectors were getting access to all requested facilities and finding nothing. One should remember that Rumsfeld told the inspectors, Congress and the American people that he knew where the weapons were. This "information" was passed to the inspectors and they found nothing. We also had solid intelligence in the form of defectors indicating that Iraq had to disband their nuclear program during earlier inspections. Scientists and technicians were on the run trying to avoid any contact with inspectors. Information after the invasion indicates the nuclear program never was reconstituted. "There was no evidence to suggest he had destroyed them. Saddam's men have stated they lied about the WMD's, so the Iranians and others would think they had them, and would fear them." What was found in the earlier inspections had certainly been destroyed. That would be that the bulk of the weapons. We found no reconstituted programs or production facilities. Saddam's rule was based on fear. Keeping Iran in the dark would help Saddam keep control of the Shi'ite majority and reduce the threat of their Iranian sponsors. This is your one point that you makes some sense. However, it does not support the notion that Iraq had any WMD or capacity to produce them. "The fact is our military won a tremendous victory in Iraq (planned by Rumsfeld). They covered more ground and won the battle in an amazingly short period of time. If you could see through your partisan glasses, you would remember the press was predicting lots and lots of G.I. deaths, especially when we reached Baghdad. The street fighting would be horrendous. It wasn't. The plan to secure the peace afterwards has not gone well, but it has gone much better than what you are reading from your far left blogs. I can't predict what my kids will do tomorrow, so I imagine it was pretty hard predicting how the Iraqis would feel after the invasion, and what they would do." I never doubted that Iraq could be taken. I did doubt that we would establish a peaceful democratic ally that would pay for its own reconstruction. However, the shifting rationale for invading Iraq puts the lie to your assertion that this was a great victory. We found no WMD. We have no evidence that Saddam had any connection to the 9/11 terrorists. In fact, shifting US military resources from Afghanistan to Iraq appears to be a major cause of Osama Bin Laden escaping the Tora Bora trap. Iraq was a Pyrrhic victory in that it bought the President sufficient time to be re-elected. "I get my news from a variety of sources, including Fox News and Limbaugh. You should check them out, instead of just letting the lefties brainwash you. Seems to me the MSM has been issuing an awful lot of corrections and apologies." I am well aware of the record inaccuracy of both Faux News and Rush. I know that the mainstream media does issue corrections. I don't expect corrections from either of your cherished sources even when they are caught dead wrong. "Go crawl back under your small rock, where everyone hates Bush and thinks gays must be allowed in Scouting and religion must be removed, in order for the BSA to become "a great youth organization again."" Your best arguments have been your spelling corrections. Perhaps you should stick to them.